Attitudes towards informed consent: a comparison between surgeons working in saudi arabia and the United kingdom.

Objectives: Changes in legal standing and new guidelines for consent have generated changes in medical culture that doctors must adhere to. This study aims to highlight the differences in the way the surgeons in the two cultures view the informed consent for surgery processes.

Methods: The attitudes towards informed consent of a group of surgeons working in Saudi Arabia (KSA) were compared with those of a similar group working in the United Kingdom (UK), a country with a longer medical history and a more established medico-legal system.

Results: The study shows that KSA surgeons tend to view informed consent not only as an ethical and legal obligation but also as a benefit to patients. In addition, KSA surgeons are more likely to adopt a paternalistic attitude during informed consent. They believe that information about harmful risks may dissuade their patients from undergoing the operation and they admit that the amount of information they provide to their patients is significantly influenced by a number of patient and non-patient related factors.

Conclusion: It is concluded that surgeons in KSA should be more aware of the informed consent guidelines and they should adhere to them. In addition, there is room for the introduction of formal training on informed consent in both countries and for making written information more widely available particularly in KSA.