Do I have a legal basis for a lawsuit due to lack of informed consent regarding the risk of anejaculation after prostate radiation therapy?

Legal Basis for Informed Consent Claim

You likely do not have a strong legal basis for a lawsuit regarding lack of informed consent for anejaculation following prostate radiation therapy, as this complication—while distressing—does not typically meet the threshold of a "material risk" that must be disclosed under most informed consent standards.

Understanding Informed Consent Requirements

The legal doctrine of informed consent requires physicians to inform patients about:

• The nature of their medical condition
• Treatment alternatives and their expected consequences
• Material, significant, or unavoidable risks, even if small 1

The critical legal question is whether reduced ejaculatory fluid constitutes a "material risk" that would influence a reasonable patient's decision to proceed with treatment 1.

Why Your Case May Be Weak

The Materiality Standard

• Informed consent law focuses on risks that are either serious in nature (even if rare) or common in occurrence 1
• The test is "patient-centered"—meaning the risk must be one that would influence a reasonable patient's decision to accept or refuse treatment 1
• While erectile dysfunction (ED) was discussed with you, reduced ejaculatory volume without ED typically does not rise to the level of a serious complication affecting mortality, morbidity, or significantly impairing quality of life 1

Distinguishing ED from Reduced Ejaculate

• ED represents a significant sexual dysfunction that materially affects quality of life and is routinely disclosed 1
• Reduced ejaculatory fluid (hypospermia) or anejaculation without ED is a different phenomenon—it may be bothersome but does not prevent sexual function or orgasm 1
• The fact that ED was discussed suggests your providers did address sexual side effects, though not this specific manifestation 1

Legal Precedent Considerations

What Must Be Disclosed

Guidelines indicate that physicians must disclose:

• Serious adverse outcomes, even if rare 1
• Less serious complications if they are frequent 1
• Any risk likely to influence the patient's decision 1

The Challenge in Your Case

• You would need to prove that reduced ejaculatory volume is either a serious complication or so common that a reasonable patient would want to know about it 1
• You would also need to demonstrate that had you known about this specific risk, you would have declined radiation therapy or chosen an alternative treatment 2
• This becomes difficult when the alternative (no treatment or different treatment) carries its own significant risks to life and health 1

Important Caveats

When Disclosure Should Have Occurred

If your specific risk factors made anejaculation more likely, or if this was a known common complication of your particular radiation protocol, the disclosure obligation would be stronger 1, 3.

Documentation Matters

• The absence of documentation does not prove lack of discussion 3, 4
• Physicians may have discussed sexual side effects generally without documenting every specific manifestation 3, 4
• Your consent form may have included language about "sexual dysfunction" or "changes in sexual function" that legally encompasses reduced ejaculate 3

Practical Reality

Burden of Proof

To succeed in a lawsuit, you would need to establish:

1. The physician had a duty to disclose this specific risk
2. The physician breached that duty by failing to disclose
3. You would have declined treatment had you known
4. You suffered harm as a direct result 5, 4, 2

The third element is particularly challenging when the alternative to radiation therapy is uncontrolled prostate cancer, which carries mortality risk 1.

Quality of Life vs. Mortality

• While reduced ejaculatory fluid affects quality of life, courts typically weigh this against the life-threatening nature of untreated cancer 1
• Informed consent law does not require disclosure of every possible side effect, only those that are material to the decision 1

Recommendation for Moving Forward

Rather than pursuing litigation, consider:

• Discussing your concerns directly with your radiation oncologist to understand if this is expected to be permanent or may improve over time 1
• Seeking referral to a sexual medicine specialist or urologist who can offer management strategies 1
• Exploring whether this represents incomplete informed consent that should be addressed through your healthcare system's patient advocacy or complaint process rather than litigation 1

The reality is that while your frustration is understandable, the legal threshold for successful informed consent litigation is high, and reduced ejaculatory volume alone—particularly when general sexual side effects were discussed—likely does not meet that threshold 1, 2.