Abstract

What is informed consent in medicine? For more than a generation, this deceptively simple question has vexed the law, discomfited medicine, and generated much inspired, provocative, and even contentious commentary.The question has also spawned several lawsuits. On one side stand patients who claim that, at the time of consent, they were ignorant of a particular risk; who state that, with more or different information, they would have chosen a different treatment; and who argue that, because of an adverse outcome, they now deserve remuneration. On the other side, doctors uneasily watch the lengthening list of suits. Some, troubled by the law's expectations, have reacted by variously describing informed consent as a myth, a fiction, an unattainable goal, or a snare to entrap physicians. They point to the legal commentary condemning informed consent law as ill-defined, diffuse, and fraught with inconsistency, hazy at its best and virtually indecipherable to physicians at its worst: and lacking a fair standard to determine when a patient has sufficient knowledge to give effective consent.