on Dr. Cooper’s part whether or not to have the procedure, but then she decided to have the procedure.”). Finally, Appellees contend that Appellants’ challenge to the propriety of the verdict slip inquiry, asking whether Dr. Nemser-Rudo committed a battery on Dr. Cooper, is not encompassed within this Court’s limited grant of allocatur. In any event, they contend that for the reasons set forth above, the verdict slip inquiry was consistent with the governing law. In resolving this appeal, we shall first discuss the relevant law on lack of consent, and then examine the charge given to the jury to determine whether it was consistent therewith. Over seventy years ago, this Court held that, absent an emergency, a physician must obtain consent to perform surgery. See Dicenzo, 16 A.2d at 16 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Moscicki v. Shor, 107 Pa.Super. 192,
holding that where a patient is in possession of his faculties and in such physical health as to be able to consult about his condition and where no emergency exists making it impracticable to confer with him his consent is a prerequisite to a surgical operation by his physician holding that a witness may testify about his subjective interpretation of a conversation in which he is participating as long as his opinion is rationally based on his perception and is helpful either to an understanding of his testimony or to the determination of a fact in issue holding that a patient who endures an operation without his consent may base his action on a tortious battery holding that if evidence exists that appellant could not use his faculties on the occasion in question in the manner in which the normal nonintoxicated person would be able to use his faculties the evidence is sufficient to convict  holding plaintiff had sufficiently stated such a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs with regard to his hepatitis c condition his pancreatic condition and the gout in his hand