Sir, prompted by Lewis' insights,1 this letter examines the differing consent process in India, which follows a more stratified approach. Written consent is legally mandated for specific critical treatments, while implied or verbal consent is often accepted for less invasive procedures.

The regulations surrounding the use of patient images in case presentations and social media also differ. In the UK, strict guidelines require written consent for the use of patient images, safeguarding patient privacy. However, in India, while consent is recommended, it is not always enforced, leading to instances where images may be used without proper patient authorisation due to more lenient regulatory oversight. An interesting dimension of consent in the UK is the treatment of minors aged 16-17.2 These individuals are presumed to possess the capacity to consent to their treatment, provided they demonstrate a full understanding of the proposed procedure, a concept known as Gillick competence. Notably, a parent's objection cannot override a competent child's consent in such cases. This practice reflects the progressive legal framework in the UK that prioritises the autonomy of minors. In India, the capacity of minors to provide consent is generally subject to parental approval, with the age of majority being the primary determinant of consent capacity.

Given these contrasts, it is imperative that healthcare practitioners, regardless of their jurisdiction, adhere to robust informed consent processes. Properly obtaining and documenting consent is not only a matter of legal compliance but also of ethical responsibility. This practice should be uniformly regulated across all healthcare systems to protect patient autonomy and ensure legal protection for practitioners.