{"id":161,"date":"2026-06-25T10:33:50","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T00:33:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/escope.ages.com.au\/july-2026\/?p=161"},"modified":"2026-06-25T11:33:10","modified_gmt":"2026-06-25T01:33:10","slug":"consent-clarified-the-gawthrop-decision-and-what-it-means-for-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/escope.ages.com.au\/july-2026\/consent-clarified-the-gawthrop-decision-and-what-it-means-for-you\/","title":{"rendered":"Consent clarified: the Gawthrop decision and what it means for you"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\t\t\tConsent clarified: the Gawthrop decision and what it means for you\t<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t

You may have heard about the recent case of Gawthrop v Bendigo Health<\/em> and seen commentary suggesting it has changed the law of consent in healthcare. This is not the case. It has, however, provided a good opportunity to clarify the requirements for valid patient consent.<\/p>\n

The case<\/strong><\/p>\n

Briefly, the case involved a first-time mother who was enrolled in a continuity-of-care midwifery program at a regional hospital. The patient developed a birth plan that prioritised a low intervention birth. This included clear refusal of vaginal examinations unless there was an urgent medical reason and with informed consent. She also expressed a strong preference for informed discussions about any intervention and for her choices to be respected wherever possible. The midwives reviewed the patient’s preferences during the antenatal period and reassured the patient her birth plan was achievable.<\/p>\n

When the patient went into labour and attended the hospital, she consented to some aspects of care but declined a vaginal examination as well as other interventions. The patient was told that she had to undergo a vaginal examination before she could be admitted, receive pain relief or the hospital would contact her continuity of care midwife. This was based on the requirements of a hospital policy, but this was not explained to the patient.<\/p>\n

Hospital staff asked the patient to consent to a vaginal examination on at least\u202fsix\u202foccasions over\u202ftwo\u202fhours. She eventually agreed, the examination was performed and she was admitted and provided pain relief. \u00a0<\/p>\n

The court found the hospital liable in assault, battery and negligence. It determined that the patient had not given free and voluntary consent to the vaginal examination, as the impression conveyed to the patient was that she had no real choice but to\u202fagree to the examination.<\/p>\n

What this means for you<\/strong><\/p>\n

While this case has attracted a lot of discussion, it has not changed the law. Rather it is a good reminder of the core requirements of consent for all clinicians, including:<\/p>\n