Mayo Clinic Proceedings Home

Medical Informed Consent: General Considerations for Physicians

      Medical informed consent is essential to the physician's ability to diagnose and treat patients as well as the patient's right to accept or reject clinical evaluation, treatment, or both. Medical informed consent should be an exchange of ideas that buttresses the patient-physician relationship. The consent process should be the foundation of the fiduciary relationship between a patient and a physician. Physicians must recognize that informed medical choice is an educational process and has the potential to affect the patient-physician alliance to their mutual benefit. Physicians must give patients equality in the covenant by educating them to make informed choices. When physicians and patients take medical informed consent seriously, the patient-physician relationship becomes a true partnership with shared decision-making authority and responsibility for outcomes. Physicians need to understand informed medical consent from an ethical foundation, as codified by statutory law in many states, and from a generalized common-law perspective requiring medical practice consistent with the standard of care. It is fundamental to the patient-physician relationship that each partner understands and accepts the degree of autonomy the patient desires in the decision-making process.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      REFERENCES

      1. Schloendorff v the Society of the New York Hospital, 211 NY 125 105 NE 92 1914 LEXIS 1028 (1914).

      2. Grable & Sons Metal Products v Darue Engineering & Manufacturing 125 S Ct 2363 2370 (2005).

        • Merz JF
        • Fischhoff B
        Informed consent does not mean rational consent: cognitive limitations on decision-making.
        J Leg Med. 1990; 11: 321-350
        • Morgan MG
        Probing the question of technology-induced risk.
        IEEE Spectrum. 1981; 18: 58-64
      3. Kahneman D Slovic P Tversky A Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK1982: 3350-3360
      4. Jackson v Julian, 694 SW 2d 434 (Tex App -Dallas 1985)

      5. Walstad v University of Minnesota Hospital, 442 F2d 634 (8th Cir 1971)

      6. Ditto v McCurdy, 510 F3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir 2007)

      7. Baylor Medical University Medical Center v Biggs, 237 SW3d 909, 922 (Tex App 2007)

      8. Hill v Medlantic Health Care Group, 933 A 2d 314, 330 (DC App 2007)

      9. Miller-McGee v Washington Hospital Center, 920 A2d 430, 439 (DC App 2007)

      10. Gorney v Meaney, 150 P2d 799, 804 (Az App Div 2 2007)

      11. Kuperstein v Hoffman-Laroche, Inc, 457 F Supp 472, 473 (SD NY 2006)

      12. Ardoin v McKay, 939 So2d 698, 705 (La App 3d Cir 2006)

      13. Saks v Ng, 890 A2d 983, 992-993 (NJ App 2006)

      14. Sherwood v Carter, 805 P2d 452, 463 (Idaho 1991)

      15. Gassman v United States, 589 F Supp 1534, 1545 (MD Fla 1984)

      16. Keeton WP Prosser WL Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts. 5th ed. West Publishing Company, St Paul, MN1984
      17. Madare v Ochsner Foundation Hospital, 505 So 2d 146 (La Ct App 1987)

      18. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F2d 772 (CADC 1972)

      19. Cowman v Hornaday, 329 NW 2d 422 (Iowa 1983)

        • Meisel A
        The “exceptions” to the informed consent doctrine: striking a balance between competing values in medical decision making.
        Wis L Rev. 1979; 1979: 413-488
      20. Banks v Wittenberg, 266 NW 2d 788 82 Mich App 274 (Mich App 1978)

        • Carnerie F
        Crisis and informed consent: analysis of a law-medicine malocclusion.
        Am J Law Med. 1987; 12: 55-97
      21. Shafford v Louisiana State University, 448 So 2d 852 (La Ct App 1984)

      22. Kissinger v Lofgren, 836 F 2d 678 (CA 1 [Mass] 1987)

        • Maldonado JE
        Strict liability and informed consent: “Don't say I didn't tell you so!”.
        Akron Law Rev. 1976 Spring; 9: 609-628
        • Stansfield MP
        Malpractice: toward a viable decision standard for informed consent.
        Oklahoma Law Rev. 1979 Fall; 32: 868-890
      23. Cobbs v Grant, 8 Cal 3d 229 502 P2d 1 (Cal 1972)

      24. Moore v Regents of the University of California, 51 Cal 3d D20 165 793. P 2d 479 291 Cal Rptr 147 note 41 (1990).

        • Hanson L
        Informed consent and the scope of a physician's duty to disclose.
        N D Law Rev. 2001; 77: 71
      25. Demers v Gerety, 85 NM 641 515 P 2d 645 (1972).

      26. Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Decision-making capacity. Minn Stat 145C 01 subd 1b

      27. Karp v Cooley, 349 F Supp 827 (SD Tex 1972) aff'd 493 F2d 408 (5th Cir 1974) cert denied 419 US 845 (1974).

      28. Parikh v Cunningham, 493 So 2d 999 11 FL L. Weekly 309 (Fla, 1986)

      29. Tarasoff v Regents of U of California, 131 Cal Rptr 24 20 551 P2d 334 340 (1976).

        • Annas GJ
        Control of tuberculosis—the law and the public's health.
        N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 585-588
      30. FHarper T, James. The Law of Torts (1968 Supp.) sec 17.161; 1968.

      31. Rogers v TJ Samson Community Hospital, 276 F 3d 228 (6 Cir 2002)

        • Agard A
        • Herlitz J
        • Hermeren G
        Obtaining informed consent from patients in the early phase of acute myocardial infarction: physicians' experiences and attitudes [letter].
        Heart. 2004; 90: 208-210
        • Yuval R
        • Halon DA
        • Merdler A
        • et al.
        Patient comprehension and reaction to participating in a double-blind randomized clinical trial (ISIS-4) in acute myocardial infarction.
        Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160: 1142-1146
        • Schats R
        • Brilstra EH
        • Rinkel GJ
        • Algra A
        • Van Gijn J
        Informed consent in trials for neurological emergencies: the example of subarachnoid haemorrhage.
        J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003; 74: 988-991
        • Schwartz B
        The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco, New York, NY2004