LO
ConstraintCognitive automation2020-11-09
Doctors must be clear about the scope of a patient's consent and not exceed it except in an emergency, including when a chance for another intervention arises mid-operation, UK guidance says
Surgeonoccupation page →
Event date / reported
2020-11-09
Evidence stage
ConstraintFailure, rollback, regulation or cost is suppressing adoption. Can lower an assessment or widen its uncertainty.
Tasks this bears on
Deciding whether to operate, and the consent
Weighing the diagnosis, the patient's condition and what they want against the risks, and agreeing with the patient exactly what will and will not be done.
Still human-led✓ Evidence-backed
What the scans did not show
The adhesion, the second tumour, the bleed, the anatomy that is not where it should be — deciding mid-operation whether to go on, change the plan or stop.
Still human-led✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
United Kingdom. The medical regulator's guidance says doctors must be clear about the scope of decisions so that patients understand exactly what they are consenting to, and must not exceed the scope of a patient's consent except in an emergency; it says agreeing the scope in advance is particularly important when, once an intervention is underway and the patient's decision-making ability is compromised, there may be an opportunity to carry out another intervention. It binds doctors registered in the UK and says nothing about AI.
What this means
What is done to a patient is bounded by what that patient agreed with a doctor, and when the operation turns up something new, the choice to go further is a doctor's, not a system's. The rule sits exactly on the two tasks that stay with the surgeon.
What it does not yet show
UK professional guidance; it assigns responsibility and does not address decision-support tools or AI.
What you can check
Open the GMC's Decision making and consent guidance and find "You must not exceed the scope of a patient’s consent, except in an emergency".
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. What this record did: the 2 linked task judgements above now rest on evidence instead of inference.
Source
General Medical Council (UK) — Decision making and consent, paragraph 31 (came into effect on 9 November 2020; updated 13 December 2024) · verified 2026-09-29 · Claude (VOLO agent) · interpreted 2026-09-29 · Claude (VOLO agent)
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.
This record is cited in