Abstract

At the Liverpool Ocular Oncology Centre (LOOC), patients with an eye tumour are offered rapid treatment. Procedures such as enucleation (surgical removal of the eye) are usually performed within 24 hours of initial assessment. Such expedited treatment can be challenged on the basis that it is incompatible with valid consent. We present the results of a questionnaire audit exploring the views of patients on how long they waited to undergo invasive procedures for intraocular melanoma. The findings inform a discussion of three plausible reasons for doubting the validity of consent to rapid intervention: the distress of diagnosis may temporarily undermine patients' capacity to choose; the decision may be too complex to make quickly; and rapid availability of treatment may be unduly influential, undermining the voluntariness of the decision. Using the example of enucleation, we argue that, with adequate safeguards, rapid intervention does not undermine the validity of patients' consent