Off-label and unlicensed prescribing in Europe: implications for patients’ informed consent and liability
- 299 Downloads
This article reviews the implications of off-label (OL) and unlicensed (UL) medicine use with respect to the legal duty to inform patients and the liability for failure to provide the patient with adequate information on benefits and risks. Informed consent is a legal prerequisite to any medical treatment and requires the physician to inform the patient about benefits and risks important for the patient’s decision. Since OL/UL medicine use is common in all fields of medical practice, physicians must be aware of the stricter requirements for information of the patient. The UK High Supreme Court ruled in the case Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board that physicians’ information duty is not limited to the level of information that the physician finds important, but to what the patient deems important. In general, violations of the rule of informed consent does not constitute a physical injury, and patients can only claim compensation for damages, if adequate disclosure had been given, and its likely, that patients would have either rejected or opted for an alternative treatment.
KeywordsInformed consent Liability Medicine use Off-label prescribing Patient information Unlicensed prescribing
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 4.European Medicines Agency. Evidence of harm from off-label or unlicensed medicines in children. 2004. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/…/Other/…/WC500004021.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 7.Birkeland SB. Informed consent obtainment, malpractice, litigation, and the potential role of shared decision-making approaches. Eur J Health Law. 2016;24:1–21.Google Scholar
- 8.Danish Ministry of Health. Health Act. Consolidated Act no. 1188 of 24 September 2016. http://www.retsinformation.dk. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 9.House of Lords. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee  2 All ER 118. http://www.parliament.uk. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 10.United Kingdom High Supreme Court. Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland),  UKSC 11, on appeal from  CSIH 3;  CSIH 104 (2015). https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0136_Judgment.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 11.Fremgen BF. Medical law and ethics. 5th ed. Pearson; 2015.Google Scholar
- 12.Council of Europe. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf. Accessed 14 March 2017.
- 13.European Court for Human Rights. Csoma v Romania. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i = 001-115862. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 14.European Court for Human Rights. V.C. v. Slovakia. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i = 001-107364. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 15.House of Lords. Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlehem Royal Hospital  UKHL 1 (21 February 1985). http://www.parliament.uk/. Accessed 14 March 2018.
- 18.High Court of Australia. Wallace v Kam . HCA 19. 87 ALJR 648; 297 ALR 383. http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2013/HCA/19. Accessed 14 March 2018.