What is the test for informed consent in medical malpractice cases?

As a starting point, an individual has an unfettered right to consent, or not consent, to medical treatment. No matter how foolish or unwise the refusal of treatment may be, it is a fundamental principle of personal autonomy that a person have the right to make decisions about his or her health, and any treatment that may be proposed. As stated by Robins J.A. for the Court of Appeal in Fleming v. Reid, supra, at p.85: The right to determine what shall, or shall not, be done with one’s own body, and to be free from non-consensual medical treatment, is a right deeply rooted in our common law. This right underlies the doctrine of informed consent. With very limited exceptions, every person’s body is considered inviolate, and, accordingly, every competent adult has the right to be free from unwanted medical treatment. The fact that serious risks or consequences may result from a refusal of medical treatment does not vitiate the right of medical self-determination. The doctrine of informed consent ensures the freedom of individuals to make choices about their medical care. It is the patient, not the doctor, who ultimately must decide if treatment – any treatment – is to be administered.