catduodenum

It looks like it is a defect on the x chromosome. So when he has a female child, he gives her one of her x chromosomes, and she gets another one from her mother. As long as one of the two x chromosomes works (meaning his partner doesn't have the disease) his child will have symptoms of disease, but usually not as severe because she will have one chromosome without the trait.

When he has a male child he will pass on his y chromosome which doesn't carry the trait so a male child won't get the disease.

His mom has only one x that carries the trait, so each of her children would have a 50% chance of getting the trait. But a male child only has one x chromosome so they will have much more severe symptoms of the disease.

Edit to add: its the same inheritance pattern as colour blindness.

Right, but actual informed consent, means the patient understands all the risks and benefits. If the patient isn't aware of a potential side effect such as brain damage prior to giving consent, it is not informed consent.

This isn't about "is it worth it" though. It's about informed consent prior to any medical procedure. Patients have the right to know what things will happen as a result of a medical procedure. If a patient isnt told that permanent brain damage can happen as a result of ECT, and then it happens then the consent they gave wasn't fully informed.

OP is trying to make it so the people who make the ECT machines provide a list of side effects that is as complete as possible, as well as make sure people who expenced those side effects who weren't aware of them can be compensated.

What OP is saying is that the people who provided ECT provided a list of side effects which did not include permanent brain damage. OP is claiming that the people who provided the service were aware of brain damage as a potential side effect, but did not disclose that to the patient as a part of their informed consent package.

If a doctor did a surgery on a patient knowing that they could cause permanent brain damage and did not tell a patient that it was a potential side effect prior to the surgery, they could be held liable and sued.

What OP is saying is that the people who provided ECT provided a list of side effects which did not include permanent brain damage. OP is claiming that the people who provided the service were aware of brain damage as a potential side effect, but did not disclose that to the patient as a part of their informed consent package.

So that is the issue here. These patients weren't fully informed, so did they really give consent?