Supreme Court Declines Petition Mandating Doctors to Explain Drug Risks, Cites Practical Challenges

Keywords ; Supreme Court, drug risks, informed consent, healthcare policy, Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Viswanathan, patient communication, Consumer Protection Act,

Supreme Court Rejects Plea for Mandatory Drug Risk Disclosure by Doctors

The Supreme Court has declined to impose an obligation on doctors to provide detailed explanations of potential risks and side effects of prescribed medications, citing practical challenges and the potential impact on healthcare efficiency.

Background of the Petition

The petitioner sought to enhance patient awareness by mandating doctors to:

• Include written notes or slips in local languages detailing the risks and contraindications of prescribed drugs.
• Provide patients with a summary of adverse effects as part of informed consent procedures.

The petitioner argued that a lack of communication regarding drug risks often leads to patient harm, undermining the principle of informed consent.

Supreme Court’s Observations

A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan evaluated the feasibility of the proposal, emphasizing the following:

• Practical Impracticality: Justice Gavai noted that requiring general practitioners to explain risks for every medication prescribed would significantly reduce patient throughput, with doctors potentially seeing only 10-15 patients daily instead of managing their typical caseload.
• Tailored Treatment Challenges: A printed proforma summarizing risks, as suggested by the petitioner, was deemed unsuitable since treatment plans and drug interactions vary for individual patients.
• Healthcare System Strain: The Court highlighted that mandatory risk disclosure by doctors could further overburden healthcare professionals, especially in overpopulated healthcare facilities.

Alternative Suggestions and Policy Recommendations

Justice Viswanathan proposed alternatives such as:

• Displaying general notices at pharmacies in local languages, encouraging patients to read medication packaging for details on side effects and risks.
• Improving pharmacist-patient communication to balance information dissemination without disrupting the efficiency of medical practitioners.

The Court also emphasized that such a systemic change would be better addressed through legislation rather than judicial intervention, citing the broader administrative implications.

Judicial Precedent

The Court referenced a Delhi High Court ruling, which had similarly dismissed a petition on this matter, affirming that setting standards for doctor-patient communication is primarily a legislative responsibility.

Conclusion

While recognizing the importance of patient awareness, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that any policy changes in this domain must consider the practical limitations of healthcare delivery and align with legislative frameworks. The decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach to balancing patient rights with healthcare system efficiency.

Stay tuned for live updates on the rupee’s movement and real-time business news on Kanishk Social Media—your go-to source for comprehensive stock market and legal news.