HB 871 – Informed Consent/Certain Procedures

HB 871 – Informed Consent/Certain Procedures

Primary House Sponsors: Rep. Gale Adcock (D-Wake); Rep. Kristin Baker, MD (R-Cabarrus); Rep. Julie von Haefen (D-Wake)

 

Summary

This bill prohibits a health care provider or trainee from performing or supervising the performance of a pelvic or rectal examination on an anesthetized or unconscious patient unless one of the following conditions is met: (1) the patient or the patient’s legal guardian/designated health care agent provides prior informed consent to a pelvic or rectal examination; (2) the patient is incapable of providing informed consent and the pelvic or rectal examination is necessary for diagnostic or treatment purposes; or (3) an emergency exists at the time of the examination and it is impractical to obtain the patient’s consent, and the pelvic or rectal examination is necessary for diagnostic or treatment purposes.

 

This bill also specifies the process to be followed to obtain consent, including providing the patient with a written or electronic document that includes certain specified requirements and obtaining the patient’s or the patient’s representative’s signature.

 

This bill also states that any individual who violates these requirements shall be guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor.

 

Movement

Filed – 5/4/2021

 
 

More Posts in Current Legislative Session

 
 

Share this Post



 
 
 

1 Comment

  • Danielle Walsh

    I am writing to ask the we rally the troops and ask the ncms to support us in opposing House bill 871. This is “An act to provide parameters for obtaining informed consent for pelvic or rectal examinations on anesthetized or unconscious patients.” It will essentially require us to obtain a second, separate, detailed consent for any operation in which we might deal with the GYN system or rectum. If the pt declines, there may be no one to assist us in the operation. While intended to prevent un-necessary exams for education, it is written in such a way as to require a full second consent and will impede the provision of good surgical care in the OR (where assistant can be crucial to success). If we don’t get the consent, we are subject to a misdemeanor. The authors clearly were not appropriately considering operative care and are creating a large paperwork burden.