Limitations of Patient Autonomy and the Doctrinal Invalidation of Consent Without Adequate Information

Patient autonomy and the right to make personal medical decisions do not confer a corresponding fundamental or legal right to demand the administration of unproven, scientifically unvalidated, or professionally disapproved clinical treatments. Under the informed consent doctrine, a patient's authorization is legally valid only when it is grounded in adequate and reliable information concerning the nature, procedure, definitive risks, and proven benefits of the proposed intervention, judged against standards accepted by experienced specialists. Where an experimental intervention such as stem cell therapy for ASD lacks empirical foundation and validated risk profiles, the treating practitioner is structurally incapable of furnishing the essential baseline of adequate information. As a result, subjective choices or parental authorizations cannot mature into valid legal consent, leaving the intervention ethically void and vulnerable to the profound vice of therapeutic misconception wherein desperate families confuse speculative research with proven routine care. (Yash Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. | 2026 INSC 96).