Patient’s Informed Consent and the Physician’s Civil Liability Within the Scope of Standard Treatment and Clinical Trials
Keywords:
Informed Consent, Patient Autonomy, Clinical Trial, Medical Law.Abstract
Informed consent constitutes a fundamental element of modern medical relationships, embodying the patient’s autonomy and representing a universally recognized ethical principle. The present paper examines the civil law foundations of informed consent, the essential elements required for its validity, the scope of liability arising from breaches of the standard of disclosure, and special case of informed consent in the context of clinical trials. While the primary focus lies on the Georgian legal framework governing informed consent, the paper also reviews international case law and regulatory instruments to highlight current challenges in medical practice and to propose recommendations.
References
1. Constitution of Georgia, Parliamentary Gazette, 31–33, 24/08/1995.
2. Civil Code of Georgia, Parliamentary Gazette, 31, 24/07/1997.
3. Law of Georgia on “Health Care”, Parliamentary Gazette, 47–48, 31/12/1997.
4. Law of Georgia on “Drugs and Pharmaceutical Activities”, Parliamentary Gazette, 17–18, 05/05/1997.
5. Law of Georgia on “Patients’ Rights”, LHG, 19, 25/05/2000.
6. Law of Georgia on “Medical Practice”, LHG, 18, 28/06/2001.
7. Law of Georgia on “Personal Data Protection”, Website, 03/07/2023.
8. Government of Georgia Decree No. 335 of 16 July 2019 “On the Approval of the Rules and Conditions for Issuing Authorizations for the Clinical Trial of Pharmacological Products, Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Authorized Pharmacies, and the Import or Export of Medicinal Products Subject to Special Control.”
9. Order No. MOH 1 22 00000089 of 2 August 2022 issued by the Minister of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Labour, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia.
10. German Civil Code (BGB), 10/08/2021.
11. Public Health Code of France, version of October 1, 2020.
12. WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants, Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, 1964, Last Amended in 2024.
13. ICH Harmonized Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R3), Final Version Adopted on 06 January 2025.
14. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, ETS No 164, 1997.
15. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Relating to the Implementation of Good Clinical Practice in the Conduct of Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use.
16. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products for Human Use, and Repealing Directive 2001/20/EC.
17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 21 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) part 50, Last Amended on 04 September 2025.
18. Annas G. J., The Changing Landscape of Human Experimentation: Nuremberg, Helsinki, and beyond, Health Matrix: “Journal of Law-Medicine” 2, No. 2, 1992, 120-122.
19. Berg J.W., Appelbaum P.S., Lidz C.W., Parker L.S., Informed Consent Legal Theory and Clinical Practice, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2001, 3, 41-65, 68-69, 76, 79, 249.
20. Bertschi, E., Biomedical Research and the Uncertain Future of Clinical Trials, “FDLI Update Magazine”, no. 6, 2001, 47.
21. Bichia M., Peculiarities of Medical Torts in Georgian Judicial Practice, “South Caucasus Law Journal”, 09/2018 – 2019, 226.
22. Bichia, M., Specificities of Ensuring Patient Personal Autonomy and Obtaining Informed Consent (Georgian and European Approaches), “Law and World”, No. 12, 2019, pp. 54, 59, 63 (in Georgian).
23. Bichia, M., Specificities of Compensation for Damage Caused by a Medical Institution: Theoretical and Practical Aspects, “Justice and Law”, No. 2 (70), 2021, p. 91 (in Georgian).
24. Bichia, M., Golden Rules for Obtaining Informed Consent According to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights, in: “Protection of Human Rights: International and National Experience”, ed. Korkelia K., Tbilisi, 2022, pp. 181, 188, 190, 195 (in Georgian).
25. Bichia, M., Gagua, I., Historical Foundations and Contemporary Challenges in the Practice of Obtaining a Patient’s Informed Consent, “Journal of Law”, No. 1, 2024, pp. 26, 32, 39–40 (in Georgian).
26. Dughashvili, G., Informed Consent in Medicine, “Medical Law and Management Journal”, No. 1/2022, p. 126 (in Georgian).
27. Hagenloch U., Informing the Patient in Germany, “Medical Law and Management Journal“, No. 2 (3) 2023, pp. 3–5, 34–35, 48–49 (in Georgian).
28. Kurniawan I.G., Chandra A., The Civil Law Aspects of Informed Consent to Medical Procedures, SASI, 30(3), 327, 330, 331.
29. Miller, Robert D., Slater v. Baker and Stapleton (C.B. 1767): Unpublished Monographs by Robert D. Miller, Madison WI, 2019, 12-13.
30. Miller R.D., History of the Use of the Term “Informed Consent” up to Salgo, posted at Minds@UW, 2020, 1.
31. Shuster E., Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code, “The New England Journal of Medicine”, 1997, 1436.
32. Vashakidze M., Protection of the Best Interests of a Child in the Medical Field (According to the Legislation in Force in Georgia), International Journal of Law: “Law and World“, Vol.10 (1), 2023, 137.
33. Vijayananthan A, Nawawi O., The importance of Good Clinical Practice guidelines and its role in clinical trials, “Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal”, 2008, 1.
34. Ruling of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia of 26 July 2019 in Case No. ას-645-2019 (in Georgian).
35. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
36. Freeman v Home Office [1986] 1 All ER 1036.
37. Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112.
38. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11.
39. Natanson v. Kline, 186 Kan. 393, 350 P.2d 1093 (Kan. 1960).
40. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 154 Cal.App.2d 560, 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1957).
41. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914).
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
