Informed consent can be either explicit or implicit; in either case, it is subject to judgement.
Consider these examples:
A dentist tells a patient that a tooth has to be extracted. By sitting in the chair and opening his mouth upon command, the patient, by implication, consents to the extraction.
A physician tells a patient that the mole on her arm should be biopsied. By presenting her arm for the biopsy, the patient gives implied consent to the procedure.
Is it necessary, in either of these cases, to obtain written consent which details all of the options, and the pros, cons, and costs of each? By obtaining written consent, are the dentist and physician absolved from liability? By being informed, can the patient be assured that all possible outcomes have been illuminated?
What's the expression: "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich." With or without informed consent, everyone is liable and no one is assured. As a rule, "routine," uncomplicated procedures are performed without first obtaining formal, written consent because, by implication, the patient consents by allowing the procedure to be performed. Usually, formal, written consent is sought in cases that involve considerable risk (death, e.g.) or unknown consequences (e.g., treatments whose outcomes are inconsistent). In the former instance, the patient's behavior is sufficient proof, formal evidence of disclosure being unnecessary; in the latter, it would, in the least, be prudent to obtain formal, written consent.
Regardless of the situation, I dare say all practitioners, clinics, or hospitals appreciate the fact that proof of informed consent proves very little and is a meager barrier to litigation.
To prove that you gave permission.
I would listen for the patient demonstrating an understanding of the proposed treatment, including its risks, benefits, and alternatives. I would also listen for any questions asked by the patient and how they are addressed by Dr. Jones to ensure that all necessary information has been provided. Additionally, I would listen for any indication of coercion or undue influence in the conversation.
The hospital patient relationship began as soon as consent to treatment began. When Peter patient asked for treatment, he was giving implied consent for the hospital to treat him. He gave his consent my agreeing to be hospitalized and by allowing himself to be treated. The relationship ends with discharge, whether he left AMA or was discharged after treatment was completed.
Juliet gave Romeo consent to pursue her heart.
Sally is using a pretty thin excuse, BUT the key may lie in whether, or not, she gave "informed consent." Meaning, did she actually understand, or have the capacity, intelligence, or knowledge of what MIGHT happen during the operation. Sounds like a case for a jury.
The parent gave consent to their child for the school field trip.
I gave my consent when my son asked to use my car for his Saturday night date.
gave the money to the poor
King Herod.
In many places, it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge or consent. It is advisable to consult with a legal professional in your area to understand the local laws regarding recording conversations. There may be alternative ways to gather evidence of abuse that comply with legal requirements.
To prove that he was not an ordinary man, that God gave him power.
Only if they have probable cause to believe you did it, but you don't have to pay the ticket if they can't prove you did it, and you can sue the people who gave false testimony about you. ---------------------- But then it would be up to you, to prove they gave false testimony about you.