My doctor did not tell me about risks to the treatment that was ended up administered to me. Is this illegal or malpractice?

“Informed consent” is a common area involved in medical malpractice suits. Doctors are under a professional obligation to warn the patient of the risks involved in various courses of treatment (or no treatment). Armed with the information, the patient can then make the decision that’s best for them. Normally, however, the harm that the doctor failed to warn about must actually come to pass. Without the actual harm, it usually isn’t possible to win a medical malpractice case for informed consent.

Therefore, if the course of treatment or procedure has a successful outcome without any bad side effects, or only has side effects the doctor warned the patient about, a patient can’t sue for malpractice when he learns afterwards that there were other risks.  There are also some situations where informed consent isn’t required. Medical emergencies, where there isn’t time to give the patient the necessary information, is one example. Another example is when a doctor is justified in determining that a patient is too emotionally frail to hear about certain risks – although that exception varies from state to state.