Ethics Committee Core Curriculum
Informed Consent
Stephen Wear
The legal doctrine of informed consent has been incorporated into
hospital policies and procedures based upon the interpretation of legal
standards. In New York, the Medical Society of the State of New York has
distributed information prepared by the office of General Counsel which
cites the relevant law. They have advised that "Unless medically
contraindicated, a physician should explain the medical or surgical
procedure to the patient so that the patient may make an informed choice
as to whether to consent. Where circumstances permit, the patient should
be told (1) the nature of the diagnosis, (2) the general nature of the
contemplated procedure, (3) the risks involved, (4) the prospect of
success, (5) the prognosis if the procedure is not performed, and (6)
alternative methods of treatment if any."
Public Health Law § 2805-d. Limitation of medical, dental or
podiatric malpractice action based on lack of informed consent.
- Lack of informed consent means the failure of the person providing the
professional treatment or diagnosis to disclose to the patient such
alternatives thereto and the reasonably foreseeable risks and
benefits involved as a reasonable medical, dental or podiatric
practitioner under similar circumstances would have disclosed, in a manner
permitting the patient to make a knowledgeable evaluation.
- The right of action to recover for medical, dental or podiatric
malpractice based on a lack of informed consent is limited to those cases
involving either (a) non-emergency treatment, procedure or surgery, or
(b) a diagnostic procedure which involved invasion or disruption of
the integrity of the body.
- For a cause of action therefor it must also be established that a
reasonably prudent person in the patient's position would not have
undergone the treatment or diagnosis if he had been fully informed and
that the lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the
injury or condition for which recovery is sought.
- It shall be a defense to any action for medical, dental or
podiatric malpractice based upon an alleged failure to obtain such an
informed consent that:
- (a) the risk not disclosed is too commonly known to warrant
disclosure; or
- (b) the patient assured the medical, dental or podiatric
practitioner he would undergo the treatment, procedure or diagnosis
regardless of the risk involved, or the patient assured the medical,
dental or podiatric practitioner that he did not want to be informed of
the matters to which he would be entitled to be informed; or
- (c) consent by or on behalf of the patient was not
reasonably possible; or
- (d) the medical, dental or podiatric practitioner, after
considering all of the attendant facts and circumstances, used reasonable
discretion as to the manner and extent to which such alternatives or risks
were disclosed to the patient because he reasonably believed that the
manner and extent of such disclosure could reasonably be expected to
adversely and substantially affect the patient's condition.
Other Resources
COPYRIGHT © 1997, UB Center for Clinical Ethics and Humanities in
Health Care
Return to Core Curriculum Table of
Contents
Return to Center for Clinical
Ethics Home Page
Move Ahead to Next Section
Last Revised 5/23/06