A man treated for prostate cancer underwent a different technique than he had authorized in writing and ended up with permanent sequelae, including erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. The Spanish Supreme Court ordered two urologists and their insurance company to pay compensation of 25 thousand euros, considering that there was no valid written informed consent for the procedure carried out.
According to Noticias Trabajo, a Spanish website specializing in legal and labor matters, the Supreme Court’s decision, dated February 4, 2026 and referred to as STS 302/2026, revokes the previous judgment of the Provincial Hearing of Gipuzkoa and partially estimates the appeal presented by the patient.
The facts date back to September 2015. According to Boletín de Actualidad de Derecho Civil, a Spanish legal publication focused on civil law news, the man was diagnosed with low-risk localized prostate cancer after undergoing a biopsy and signed an informed consent document only for a radical prostatectomy, which consists of the complete extirpation of the prostate.
However, doctors recommended and applied a different technique, cryotherapy, presented as a less invasive alternative.
The central point of the dispute, according to the same analysis, is that the existence of a written informed consent document for cryotherapy was not demonstrated.
Doctors claimed that this consent had been signed but lost at the hospital. , citing the ruling, states that only a blank form appeared in the process.
Specific consent is required
The Supreme Court considered that informed consent must be clear, specific and duly documented, especially when the technique used differs from that initially envisaged.
The signed authorization for an intervention cannot be automatically extended to a different procedure, even if related to the same diagnosis.
According to Spanish sources, the patient claimed that the risks associated with cryotherapy were never specifically explained to him, namely the possibility of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, consequences that ended up occurring, among other complications described in the process.
Sequels and civil liability without “mala praxis”
According to NoticiasTrabajo and the Boletín de Actualidad de Derecho Civil, the Supreme Court did not consider there to be proof of a technical error in the execution of the medical act.
Still, it concluded that the lack of written informed consent deprived the patient of an informed decision about therapeutic alternatives, applying the “loss of opportunity” doctrine.
It was within this framework that the compensation was set at 25 thousand euros, to be paid by the two urologists and the insurance company, in a decision that only partially accepted the patient’s claims.
Decision reinforces duty of information
The ruling highlights the importance of informed consent as a guarantee of patients’ rights. Not only is the technical quality of the medical act at stake, but also respect for the patient’s autonomy in making decisions about their treatment.
Whenever there is a relevant change in the technique initially envisaged, new information must be provided and specific consent obtained, under penalty of civil liability.
And in Portugal?
In Portugal, informed consent and the user’s right to information are provided for in Law No. 15/2014, which regulates the rights and duties of users of health services, and in the Basic Health Law (Law No. 95/2019), in addition to the ethical guidelines and duties defined by the Medical Association.
The rule is that healthcare requires free and informed consent from the patient, except in duly substantiated situations of urgency or incapacity. Whenever there is a relevant change to the procedure initially envisaged, new information must be provided and new consent obtained, under penalty of civil liability for breach of the duty to inform.
Also read:
