Introduction

In this module, we explore of the doctrine of informed consent. This is a specific legal obligation imposed on physicians, and failure to meet it can expose physicians to liability. While the basic negligence/malpractice framework applies, there are some specific requirements that apply to a claim for failure to obtain informed consent.

Objectives

• Examine the history of the informed consent
• Distinguish between claims for failure to obtain informed consent under the battery model vs. the disclosure model
• Identify the types of information that must be disclosed for informed consent under the reasonable patient vs. reasonable physician standards
• List the different obligations under the reasonable patient vs. reasonable physician model
• Differentiate between material and non-material information for purposes of informed consent disclosures 
• Apply court decisions about the material of statistical and financial information with respect to informed consent disclosures
• Identify exceptions to informed consent requirements and the institutional role for informed consent

Readings

For this module, you should read the case Canterbury v. Spence, Johnson v. Kokemoor, Arato v. Avedon, Moore v. Regents of the University of California. These each highlight a different aspect of consent disclosures. You may also want to check out the materials in the Additional Resources section. These includes some decision aids for use of particular context. You might think about how these might help in getting informed consent. There is also a video that reviews the major informed consent concepts, but keep in mind that this is a Canadian video also addresses some broader ethical concepts we have not focused on.

When reading Canterbury v. Spence, pay attention to the following:

• What the standard for disclosure for informed consent was before Canterbury v. Spence
• How Canterbury v. Spence changed the standard for disclosure for informed consent
• Which approach makes the most sense legally, ethically, and practically

When reading Johnson v. Kokemoor, pay attention to the following:

• What information the patient requested
• Whether the reasonable patient would have wanted to know that information (and why)
• How broad or narrow the decision is

When reading, Arato v. Avedon, think about:

• Whether disclosure of statistical information may have made a difference to Mr. Arato’s decision, in light of the infographics shared on the course page

When reading Moore v. Regents of the University of California, pay attention to the following

• The dual role that Dr. Golde played with respect to Mr. Moore
• What Dr. Golde asked Mr. Moore to do following the successful surgery

Next > Readings