[Informed Consent: Something Unresolved in the Penitentiary Setting].

INTRODUCTION: The exercise of Informed Consent within the penitentiary environment contradicts the ordinary exercise of the same towards the rest of the population. METHODOLOGY: review of legal regulations and constitutional doctrine on IC. Review of the judicial outcomes when a prisoner refuses medical treatment. RESULTS: Normative on IC (Ley 41/2002 y Convenio de Oviedo, Spanish legal framework): with the exception of cases in which IC cannot be taken or under the risk of causong damage to third parties, competent and capable persons can decide over their life and health, and such decisions need to be respected. Biomedical Research Law: no mention of prisons. Penitentiary normative on IC (Ley 1/1979, organica, general penitenciaria, Reglamento Penitenciario, Spanish legal framework): the Administration must veil over prisoners' life and health. Constitutional Doctrine: Constitutional Court Sentence (STC) 120/1990; 137/1990 and 11/1991 (Spanish legal framework): constitutional legitimacy to apply forcible feeding on a hunger striker is provisioned as it is compared to medical treatment; justified due to the need to preserve the higher good of human life. STC 37/2011: IC is inherent to the fundamental right to physical integrity. Judicial resolutions: authorisation of forcible medical treatment over a prisoner if, under medical criteria, his life or health are at stake. CONCLUSIONS: limitations over prisoners' rights concerning IC are applied in extreme cases in which his/her life or health are threatened. This practice unveils judicial mandates infringing upon the fundamental and constitutional right to physical integrity, and upon the common legislation on IC.