Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T10:25:32.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond Canterbury: Can Medicine and Law Agree about Informed Consent? And Does It Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Marc D. Ginsberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Informed consent is central to the law of the physicianpatient relationship, respecting patient autonomy. This paper addresses a conflict between law and medicine in defining informed consent. Additionally, it addresses the possibility that patients prefer not to be “informed“ and would defer decision-making to their physicians.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 1: Under Attack: Reconceptualizing Informed Consent , Spring 2017 , pp. 106 - 111
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

See Ginsberg, M. D., “Informed Consent: No Longer Just What the Doctor Ordered? The ‘Contributions’ of Medical Associations and Courts to a More Patient Friendly Doctrine,” Michigan State University Journal of Medicine & Law 15 (2010): 17-69 [hereinafter Ginsberg I].Google Scholar
See, e.g., Jarrell v. Kaul, 123 A.3d 1022, 1029 (N.J. 2015) (holding that a physician is not obligated to disclose the lack of professional liability insurance coverage in order to obtain a patient's informed consent); Jandre v. Wis. Injured Patients & Families Comp. Fund, 813 N.W.2d 627, 640 (Wis. 2012) (requiring the disclosure of the differential diagnosis in order to obtain informed consent); Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238, 244 (4th Cir. 2014) (informed consent and the First Amendment); see also Mariner, W. K. and Annas, G. J., “Informed Consent and the First Amendment,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 14 (2015): 1285-87. The law of informed consent has recently changed in the United Kingdom to a more patient friendly doctrine. Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Bd., [2015] UKSC 11. See also E. Larner and R. Carter, “The Issue Of Consent In Medical Practice,” British Journal of Haematology 172, no. 2 (2016) 300-04 (2016); J. Montgomery and E. Montgomery, “Montgomery on Informed Consent: An Inexpert Decision?” Journal of Medical Ethics 42, no. 2 (2016) 89-94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg I, supra note 1, at 18.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, M. D., “Informed Consent and the Differential Diagnosis: How the Law Can Overestimate Patient Autonomy and Compromise Health Care,” Wayne Law Review 60 (2014): 349-94 at 351 [hereinafter Ginsberg II].Google Scholar
Dalla-Vorgra, P., Lascaratos, J., Skiadas, P., and Garanis-Papadaros, T., “Is Consent in Medicine a Concept only of Modern Times?” Journal of Medical Ethics 27, no. 1 (2001): 59-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914) (Cardozo, J.), abrogated by Bing v. Thunig, 143 N.E. 2d 3 (N.Y. 1957).Google Scholar
Id., at 93.Google Scholar
Furrow, B. R., Greaney, T. L., Johnson, S. H., Jost, T. Stoltzfus, and Schwartz, R. L., Health Law, (3d ed. 2015): § 3-9, at 121.Google Scholar
Id., at 122.Google Scholar
Id. § 3-2, at 76-77.Google Scholar
Id. § 3-10, at 123-124.Google Scholar
464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
Id., at 786-87.Google Scholar
464 F.2d 772.Google Scholar
Id. at 783, n.36.Google Scholar
See Garrod, S. and Pickering, M. J., “Why Is Conversation So Easy?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, no. 1 (2004): 8-11 (defining dialogue as holding a conversation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Weiss, B. D., Health Literacy and Patient Safety: Help Patients Understand – Manual For Clinicians, (American Medical Association Foundation, 2d ed. 2007): at 15, available at <http://med.fsu.edu/userFiles/file/ahec_health_clinicians_manual.pdf> (last visited January 17, 2017)..Google Scholar
464 F.2d 772.Google Scholar
Ransohoff, D. F., Pignone, M., and Sox, H. C., “How to Decide Whether a Clinical Practice Guideline is Trustworthy,” JAMA 309, no. 2 (2013): at 139-40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
464 F.2d 772.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 784 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
See also Wertheimer, E., “Calling It a Leg Doesn't Make it a Leg: Doctors, Lawyers, and Tort Reform,” Roger Williams University Law Review 13 (2008): 154-88, at 160-62 (discussing the tension between medicine and law regarding the law of informed consent); M. D. Altschule, “Bad Law, Bad Medicine,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 3, no. 3 (1977): 295-302, at 297 (suggesting that the American legal system should utilize juries of experts, not laypersons, in medical negligence trials).Google Scholar
813 N.W. 2d 627 (Wis. 2012).Google Scholar
Ginsberg II, supra note 4, at 371-74.Google Scholar
813 N.W. 2d 627 (Wis. 2012).Google Scholar
Blake, V., “Medicine, the Law and Conceptions of Evidence,” Virtual Mentor 15, no. 1 (2013): 46-50.Google Scholar
See Burt, R. A., “Doctors vs. Lawyers: The Perils of Perfectionism,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 53, no. 4 (2009): 1177-88, at 1185.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Levinson, W., Kao, A., Kuby, A., and Thisted, R. A., “Not All Patients Want To Participate In Decision Making,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 20, no. 6 (2005): 531-35, at 533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, O., “Empty Ethics: The Problem with Informed Consent,” Sociology of Health & Illness 2, no. 7 (2003): 768-792, at 787 (citing J. Tobias, “Changing The British Medical Journal's Position On Informed Consent Would Be Counterproductive,” BMJ 316, no. 7136 (1998): 1001-02, at 1002; See also D. Dickinson, et al., “What Information Do Patients Need About Medicines?” BMJ 327, no. 7419 (2003): 861, 861.Google Scholar
464 F.2d 772.Google Scholar
Grady, C., “Enduring and Emerging Challenges of Informed Consent,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 22 (2015): 855-62, at 856 (“Informed consent is a process of communication between the health care provider … and the patient … that ultimately culminates in the authorization or refusal of a specific intervention…”).Google Scholar
Whitney, S. N., McGuide, A. L. and McCullough, L. B., “A Typology of Shared Decision Making, Informed Consent, and Simple Consent,” Annals of Internal Medicine 140, no. 1 (2003): 54-59, at 54. See also D. N. Patel et al., “Preoperative Consent for Patients with Limited English Proficiency,” Journal of Surgical Research 200, no. 2 (2016): 514-22, at 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Informed Consent, American College of Surgeons, available at <https://www.facs.org/education/patient-education/patient-resources/informed-consent> (last visited January 17, 2017) [hereinafter Informed Consent].+(last+visited+January+17,+2017)+[hereinafter+Informed+Consent].>Google Scholar
Id. (emphasis added).Google Scholar
464 F.2d 772.Google Scholar
Informed Consent, supra note 35.Google Scholar
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee Opinion No. 439 (August 2009) (reaff'd 2015).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Meisel, A. and Kuczewski, M., “Legal and Ethical Myths About Informed Consent,” Archives of Internal Medicine 156, no. 22 (1996): 2521-26, at 2522.Google Scholar
Ginsberg II, supra note 4, at 392 (citing Nutbeam, D., “Defining and Measuring Health Literacy: What Can We Learn from Literacy Studies,” International Journal of Public Health 54, no. 5 (2009): 303-05, at 304; B. Lorenzen et al., “Using Principles of Health Literacy to Enhance the Informed Consent Process,” AORN Journal 88, no. 1 (2008): 23-29 (quoting L. Nielsen-Bohlman, A. M. Panzer, and D. A. Kindig, eds., Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion [New York: National Academies Press, 2004]: at 37).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Goodson, P., and Acosta, S., “Blending Health Literacy with an English as a Second Language Curriculum: A Systematic Literature Review,” Journal of Health Communication 20, no. 2 (2015): 101-11 (referring to the Institute of Medicine).Google Scholar
464 F.2d 772.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Ginsberg I, supra note 1; Ginsberg II, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Jarrell, 123 A.3d at 1022.Google Scholar