100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 18 - 19 out of 60 pages.
This winded up causing her hip to dislodge and it prevented her from ever being able to walk again.•Issue: Does informed consent require that a doctor to obtain patient’s consent before implementing a non-invasive course of treatment? YESoIn addition, does the doctor have to discuss with patient alternative treatments that he does not recommend? (yes, especially if they would effect quality of life or subjective values)•Reasoning: Although historicallyconsidered to be battery, an informed consent claim differs from batteryin that it focuses not in offensive touching, but on a physician’s deviation from a standard of care.oInformed consent turns on whether the physician adequately presents the material facts so that the patient can make an informed decision.oPhysicians have an obligation to inform patients of medically reasonable treatment alternatives (and their attendant probable risks and outcomes). This is especially true where value judgments are concernedoPhysicians do not adequately discharge their responsibilities by disclosing only treatment alternatives that they recommend. They should also discuss possible risks and benefitsoCites patient autonomyas a compelling reason for the obligation of informed consent.oThe reasonable patient standard need not unduly burden the patient-doctor relationship, but the doctor must disclose enough information for a reasonable patient to make an informed decision. The causality should be resolved on an objective basis. If adequateconsent has been achieved then causality for injury is better determined.oInformed consent is especially important when the alternatives are mutually exclusive.NOTE: each state chooses standard of care. For example, NY determines what a reasonable practitioner should have disclosed, and NJ determines what the reasonable patient should want doctors to disclose. It is possible that there is no need to discuss an appropriate antibiotic, but it is reasonable to discuss alternative treatments for cancer and their pros and cons.CLASS NOTES:•Thereasonable patient or doctor standard exists becauseexplaining every single possible thing that can go wrong may stop people from having beneficial medical procedures because they are afraid of flesh-eating bacteria when they have a 1:100,000 chance of contracting it. Also, it is very burdensome on the doctor to explain every single risk or possible outcome of every option.•So then, the law attempted to embody the EX ANTE point of view, and do what is best for the aggregate by using the reasonable patient/practitioner standard. •The doctor/defendant in this case is focusing on informed consent as battery only by saying there is no battery because there was no touching, this is an OVERLY FORMALISTIC. The SUBSTANTIVE decision about informed consent that the judge makes is that the policy rationale underlying the rule has to do with autonomy (freedom from being unduly touched) SO there is just as much harm sometimes to autonomy even with no touching in informed consent cases.