By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
The consent that must mean something
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Que v. Philippine Heart Center is a reminder that informed consent is not a ceremonial signature but a legal and ethical duty that anchors the physician–patient relationship. The case arose from a family’s grief, but its implications reach far beyond one tragic outcome. It forces us to confront what consent must look like in a medical system where innovation, risk, and trust intersect.
The facts are stark. Quintin Que suffered from an aortic arch aneurysm and was advised by his surgeon, Dr. Avelino Aventura, to consider a less invasive stenting procedure. The family hesitated, but the doctor explained the risks and introduced the foreign specialist who would perform the operation. The Court noted that Quintin signed two consent forms, and that “his signature appeared in these documents,” with no evidence of forgery or incapacity. The autopsy later confirmed that he died from complications of hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, triggered by catheterization — a known risk of the procedure.
The doctrine of informed consent demands more than a form. It requires disclosure of “material risks,” meaning risks that would matter to a reasonable patient deciding whether to proceed. In this case, the medical experts were unequivocal: stroke and death were inherent risks of stenting, risks that exist “regardless of whether the device was successfully deployed.” The Court found that these risks were explained, that the patient understood them, and that the consent was valid.
But the deeper lesson lies in what informed consent is meant to protect. The Court quoted the enduring principle that “every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” That right is hollow unless the patient is given enough information to make an intelligent choice. It is not enough for a physician to be competent; he must also be candid. It is not enough for a patient to sign; he must also understand.
The Court ultimately absolved the physicians and the hospital of liability, finding no negligence and no breach of duty. Yet the case underscores the continuing need for clarity in medical communication. Innovation in medicine is welcome, but it must never be sold as certainty. A procedure may be less invasive, but “less risk” is not “no risk.” A new device may be promising, but novelty is not a guarantee.
Informed consent is not a shield for doctors nor a trap for patients. It is a process that respects autonomy, demands honesty, and acknowledges that medicine, for all its advances, still carries uncertainty. Que reminds us that consent must be real — not perfunctory, not rushed, and never reduced to paperwork. It must mean something. (Que v. Philippine Heart Center, G.R. No. 268308, April 2, 2025)