Introduction:
The patient’s consent must meet certain legally prescribed requirements in order to have legal force. Namely, it has to be informed, i.e. preceded by adequate therapeutic information, and it has to be consciously given. Medical practice, however, often involves patients who, due to their condition, are in no position to give legally efficacious consent.

Aim of the research:
The analysis of cases in which medical proceedings were interrupted due to the impossibility of obtaining the patient’s informed consent.

Material and methods:
The study material comprised a group of 100 patients whose medical documentation was analyzed in the light of the reason for seeking substitutive consent from the court, the time the court took to decide, or, alternatively, a different outcome in the case of the patient’s death or completion of the procedure for life-saving reasons without obtaining consent.

Results and conclusions:
Legal provisions do not apply to situations where there is no premise that the delay caused by the consent procedure would pose a threat to the patient’s life, cause serious injury or serious health impairment, but at the same time the necessity to perform a given procedure is so urgent that proceedings before a court in normal operation are not advisable. The physician is then in Antigone’s situation – either of the two solutions is undesirable; hence, the doctor is forced to choose the lesser evil. The delay occasioned by waiting for the court’s substitutive consent in the legally prescribed procedure may be excessive, as well as engaging the physician’s legal and ethical responsibility. Hence, a legislative intervention appears necessary.