Beyond the Signature: Why Consent Forms Alone Don't Shield Veterinary Practices from Liability

A Legal Perspective on Informed Consent in Veterinary Medicine

Despite obtaining signed consent forms from pet owners before proceeding with surgical procedures on their beloved pets, many veterinarians find themselves facing complaints or legal action when treatments result in adverse outcomes, including pet fatalities. The question that frequently arises is: "How can I be liable when the owner signed a consent form acknowledging the risks?"

The answer lies in understanding that a signature on a consent form represents only one component of legally valid informed consent. True protection requires a comprehensive approach that goes far beyond obtaining a written signature.

The Evolving Standard of Informed Consent

The legal landscape surrounding informed consent has evolved significantly in recent years. The landmark 2015 UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board fundamentally shifted the standard from what a reasonable medical professional would disclose to what a reasonable patient would want to know. This patient-centered approach has influenced jurisdictions globally and continues to shape consent requirements.

While Hong Kong veterinary law follows similar principles to human medical law, the core question remains whether the pet owner was genuinely informed and understood the risks they were consenting to, not merely whether they signed a document.

Four Critical Elements for Valid Veterinary Consent

1. Active Risk Communication: Beyond Documentation

Simply having risks listed on a consent form does not fulfill your expected standard of care. Both the veterinarian or the assigned veterinary assistant(s) must actively explain the risks to pet owners, covering both foreseeable and unforeseeable complications.

This explanation should be tailored to the specific procedure and the individual animal's condition. Generic risk statements fail to meet the standard of care expected in veterinary practice. The communication must be clear, comprehensive, and documented, with notes indicating what was discussed, when, and by whom.

2. Ensuring True Understanding: The Language Barrier Challenge

Hong Kong's multilingual environment presents unique challenges for informed consent. A pet owner signing a consent form in English when their primary language is Cantonese or Mandarin may not constitute valid consent if they did not truly understand the information provided.

When language barriers exist, veterinary practices should arrange for qualified interpreters rather than relying solely on family members or digital translation tools. If Google Translate or similar tools are used as a supplementary aid, this must be clearly documented, along with confirmation that the pet owner demonstrated understanding of the translated information through follow-up questions and responses.

The practice should maintain records showing how language barriers were addressed and evidence that the pet owner comprehended the risks being explained.

3. Enhanced Documentation for High-Risk Procedures

For procedures carrying significant risks, a simple signature at the bottom of a consent form may prove insufficient. Best practice involves having both the veterinarian and pet owner initial beside each major risk item discussed, particularly those that could result in serious complications or death.

This approach demonstrates that specific risks were individually addressed rather than buried within dense legal text. For critical procedures, consider implementing a two-stage consent process: initial discussion and documentation followed by a final confirmation closer to the procedure date.

4. Comprehensive Consent Form Content

A compliant consent form should include several essential elements. Pet and owner identification details must be complete and accurate, including emergency contact information and clear identification of who has authority to make medical decisions for the animal.

The form should specify the authorized procedures and identify alternative decision-makers if the primary owner becomes unavailable. Risk disclosure must be comprehensive, covering both general and procedure-specific risks, with clear language about the possibility of death when applicable.

The term "death" should be used explicitly rather than euphemisms like "not waking up" or "complications." Financial responsibilities, including costs for emergency interventions, should be clearly outlined.

The consent form should include acknowledgment statements where the owner confirms they understand the explained risks and have had opportunities to ask questions. Include spaces for documenting that verbal explanations were provided and understood.

The Critical Gap: Understanding vs. Signature

Even the most comprehensive consent form fails to provide legal protection if the pet owner did not genuinely understand what they were agreeing to. Courts increasingly scrutinize whether informed consent was truly obtained rather than simply documented.

This means that veterinary practices must focus on the quality of communication and understanding, not just the completeness of paperwork. Staff training should emphasize communication skills, cultural sensitivity, and documentation practices that demonstrate genuine informed consent was obtained.

Practical Implementation Recommendations

Develop standardized procedures for risk communication that ensure consistency across your practice. Train all staff involved in consent processes on proper communication techniques and documentation requirements.

Consider implementing consent verification processes, such as asking pet owners to explain back their understanding of the key risks in their own words. For complex or high-risk procedures, schedule separate consultation appointments dedicated to consent discussions, allowing owners time to process information and formulate questions.

Maintain detailed records of all consent conversations, including who was present, what was discussed, questions asked, and how understanding was verified in the veterinarians’ clinical notes. These records can prove invaluable if consent validity is later questioned.

Conclusion

Valid informed consent in veterinary practice requires active engagement with pet owners, ensuring they genuinely understand the risks they are accepting. While consent forms remain important documentation tools, they represent only one element of a comprehensive consent process.

By focusing on meaningful communication, addressing language barriers, implementing enhanced documentation for high-risk cases, and ensuring true understanding rather than mere signature collection, veterinary practices can better protect themselves while providing the standard of care that Hong Kong pet owners deserve.