1. The doctor who does not inform the patient and does not receive his consent, even in the event that he acts lege artis and conducts a medical act successfully, violates the rights to personal freedom, dignity and integrity. Consent of the patient is needed in relation to the infringement of the physical integrity of the patient caused by a medical intervention, but also as a precondition of a contract for medical services.
2. Information provided to the patient preceding his consent is necessary in order for the consent to be valid. Failure to comply with the duty to inform indicates that the treatment lacks the necessary informed consent.
3. Consent can be so called presumed in case of trivial diagnostic or therapeutic procedure without any risks or so commonly practiced.  Whether presumed consent of the patient exists in a case, will depend on the nature of the medical intervention, its possible consequences and the attitude of the patient.
4. A physician bears a duty of candor towards the patient and he shall inform, fully and comprehensibly, his patient on the true status of his health, the content and results of the medical act proposed, the consequences and the possible risks from its performance, the side-effects, the alternatives and the possible time of cure, so that the patient may shape a complete picture of the medical, social, economic factors and consequences of his condition and proceed with his decision.
5. Written consent is not obligatory.
6. There are certain exceptions which permit medical intervention to take place without the patient’s consent (so-called “non-consensual medical actions”). According to Greek law, these non-consensual medical actions are defined to be all those interventions on the part of the doctor on the patient (preventive, diagnostic, curative) for which the decision on whether or not the intervention should be undertaken is exclusively the doctor’s responsibility.In these cases, the obligation to inform the patient does not rest on the physician.
7. Every patient has the right to give or refuse his consent to any diagnostic or therapeutic procedure intended to be carried out on him.
8. In case of a minor patient, the physician is obligated to obtain the consent of a minor’s legal representative as determined by the Civil and Penal Codes. Patients under the age of eighteen are regarded as minors.The opinion of the minor is taken into consideration if the physician is of the opinion that bearing in mind the minor’s age and mental and emotional maturity he is able to understand his health condition as well as the nature, the consequences, the results and the risks of the treatment. A mature minor may give his consent alone, but the consent of his parents may also be required. The physician always has to evaluate the situation and to judge whether the consent of the parents will also be required. Sometimes, the parents’ duties of custody and care conflict with the personal rights of the minor. If the parents of a minor refuse to consent and the life of the minor is in danger, the duty to rescue obliges the physician to act on his own initiative.
9. If a patient is not competent, consent for a medical treatment is given by the legal representative if appointed; if this is not the case, consent is given by the relatives of the patient. In any case the physician must try to obtain the voluntary participation and cooperation of the patient, especially of those patients who understand the status of health and their nature, consequences, results and risks of a treatment.

Top