Hostname: page-component-669899f699-chc8l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T17:04:28.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flying Too Close to the Sun: Lessons Learned from the Judicial Expansion of the Objective Patient Standard for Informed Consent in Wisconsin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Arthur R. Derse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, after adopting the doctrine of the objective (reasonable) patient standard, expanded it in bold and innovative ways over nearly four decades, until the Wisconsin legislative and executive branches drastically reversed this course. The saga has implications for other jurisdictions considering adoption or expansion of the objective patient standard doctrine

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 1: Under Attack: Reconceptualizing Informed Consent , Spring 2017 , pp. 51 - 59
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

Hamilton, E., Mythology (New York: Little Brown & Co., 1942): Daedalus, at 192-194.Google Scholar
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914) at 93, 211 N.Y. 125.Google Scholar
Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Board of Trustees, 154 Cal.App.2d 560, 317 P.2d 170 (1957)Google Scholar
Faden, R., Beauchamp, T. L., and King, N. M. P., A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986): at 145, fn 35.Google Scholar
Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal.3d, 285, 165 Cal.Rptr. 308, 611 P.2d 902 (1980).Google Scholar
Natanson v. Kline, 186 Kan. 393, 350 P.2d 1093 (1960).Google Scholar
Canterbury v. Spence,464 F.2d 772, U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
Canterbury v. Spence,464 F.2d at 787 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
For the purpose of clarity, the objective standard set by the reasonable patient is referred to in this article as the “objective patient” standard to differentiate it from the professional standard of the reasonable physician.Google Scholar
King, J. S. and Moulton, B., “Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Decisionmaking,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 32, no. 4 (2006): 429-501, at 429, 493-501. (Appendix), cited in B. R. Furrow, T. L. Greaney, S. H. Johnson, T. Stolzfus Jost, and R. L. Schwartz, “Informed Consent: The Physician's Obligation,” in Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. 2013): at 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scaria v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 68 Wis. 2d 1, 227 N.W.2d 647 (1975).Google Scholar
Id., at 20 (1975)Google Scholar
Id., at 12 (1975).Google Scholar
Wis. A.B. 941 (1981), enacted as Ch. 375, Laws of 1981 (May 6, 1982).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (1982).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (2) (1982).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (3) (1982).Google Scholar
Meisel, A., “The Expansion of Liability for Medical Accidents: from Negligence to Strict Liability by Way of Informed Consent,” Nebraska Law Review 56, no. 4 (1977): 51-152, available at <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol56/iss1/4> (last visited January 20, 2017).Google Scholar
Braddock, C. H., Edwards, K. A., Hasenberg, N. M., Laid-ley, T. L., and Levinson, L., “Informed Decision Making in Outpatient Practice: Time to Get Back to Basics,” JAMA 282, no. 24 (1999): 2313-2320.Google Scholar
Martin v. Richards 92 Wis. 2d 156, 531 N.W.2d 70 (1995).Google Scholar
Martin v. Richards, 192 Wis. 2d at 175 (1995).Google Scholar
Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis. 2d 615, 639, 545 N.W.2d 495 (1996).Google Scholar
Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis. 2d at 619 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis. 2d at 639 (1996).Google Scholar
SeeFurrow et al., supra note 10, at 218, note 4, and at 232, note 4.Google Scholar
Bubb v. Brusky, 2009 WI 91 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 903.Google Scholar
Bubb, 2009 WI 91. ¶3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubb, 2009 WI 91 ¶71.Google Scholar
Bubb, 2009 WI 91 ¶70.Google Scholar
Jandre v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis. and Therese J. Bullis, M.D., 2012 WI 39; 330 Wis. 2d 50, 792 N.W.2d 558.Google Scholar
Jandre, 2012 WI 39 ¶39-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jandre, 2012 WI 39 ¶3.Google Scholar
Jandre, 2012 WI 39 ¶165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jandre, 2012 WI 39 ¶87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jandre, 2012 WI 39 ¶47-48.Google Scholar
Jandre, 2012 Wis. 39 ¶ 301, 315 (Roggensack, Ziegler, Gable-man JJ., Dissenting).Google Scholar
Jandre, 2012 Wis. 39 ¶256, 259 (Prosser J., Concurring)Google Scholar
Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Wisconsin Medical Society and the Wisconsin Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, “Statement Concerning the Supreme Court Decision on Jandre v. Wisconsin, Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund. April 12, 2012, available at <http://www.wha.org/Data/Sites/1/pubarchive/news_releases/nr4-17-12jandre.pdf> (last visited January 23, 2017).+(last+visited+January+23,+2017).>Google Scholar
Grapentine, M., “Jandre Hearings: Clarifying Informed Consent,” Wisconsin Medical Society, 2013, available at <https://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/the-insider/jandre-hearings-clarifying-informed-consent> (last visited January 23, 2017).Google Scholar
Wis. A.B. 129 (2013), enacted as 2013 Wis. Act 111 (December 13, 2013).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (intro.) (2013).Google Scholar
See Martin v. Richards, supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Johnson v. Kokemoor, supra note 21.Google Scholar
See Bubb v. Brusky, supra note 25.Google Scholar
See Jandre v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis. and Therese J. Bullis, M.D., supra note 29.Google Scholar
Rohde, M., “Information Overload: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court Expanded the Doctrine of Informed Consent,” John Marshall Law Review 46, no. 4 (2013): 1097-1120, available at <http://lawreview.jmls.edu/information-overload-how-the-wisconsin-supreme-court-expanded-the-doctrine-of-informed-consent> (last visited January 23, 2017).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (7) (2013).Google Scholar
Pope, T. M. and Hexum, M., “Legal Briefing: Informed Consent in the Clinical Context,” Journal of Clinical Ethics 25, no. 2 (2014): 152-174, at 157.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Constitution Annotated, Article I. Declaration of Rights. Sec. 9, Remedy for Wrongs, Last Amended at the April 2015 Election, published July 12, 2016, available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000226/000010> (last visited January 23, 2017).+(last+visited+January+23,+2017).>Google Scholar
Washington State Health Care Authority. Decision Aids, available at <http://www.hca.wa.gov/hw/Pages/shared_decision_making.aspx> (last visited January 23, 2017).+(last+visited+January+23,+2017).>Google Scholar
Pope, T. M., “Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45, no. 1 (2017): 12-40.Google Scholar
See American Medical Association, News Release, New AMA Study Reveals Majority of America's Physicians Still Work in Small Practices, July 8, 2015, available at <http://www.amaassn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2015/2015-07-08-majority-americas-physicians-work-small-practices.page> (last visited January 23, 2017). (last visited January 23, 2017).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+American+Medical+Association,+News+Release,+New+AMA+Study+Reveals+Majority+of+America's+Physicians+Still+Work+in+Small+Practices,+July+8,+2015,+available+at++(last+visited+January+23,+2017).>Google Scholar
See Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Board of Trustees, supra note 3.Google Scholar
See Canterbury v. Spence, supra note 7.Google Scholar
See Furrow, supra note 10, at 217, note 2.Google Scholar