How Much Information Is Sufficient for Informed Consent to Be Effective and Legal

¶ … Consent

How much information is sufficient for informed consent to be effective and legal?

Informed consent is considered an ethical obligation on the part of physicians and is also a legal requirement in all 50 states. Informed consent means that the physician has discussed the patient's diagnosis; the purpose, risks, and benefits of any treatment or procedure he or she is performing on the patient; alternative treatments and their risks and benefits and the risks and benefits of doing nothing (Informed consent, 2012, AMA). "In order for informed consent to be considered valid, the client must be competent and the consent should be given voluntarily" (Cherry 2012).

The doctrine of informed consent is founded upon the concept that a physician's belief that a procedure is necessary is not enough to warrant intrusion into the patient's body without the patient's consent: "when a sufficiently capacitated adult does not give sufficiently informed and voluntary consent to intervention in her body or her private sphere, then, at least when the intervention is substantial, not trivial, and absent severe jeopardy for third parties, the intervention is impermissible" (Eyal 2011). The philosophical concept of autonomy is an important component behind the principle of informed consent.

Physicians usually document that informed consent has taken place through the use of a consent form. However, "forms that serve mainly to satisfy all legal requirements (stating for example that 'all material risks have been explained to me') may not preclude a patient from asserting that the actual disclosure did not include risks that the patient unfortunately discovered after treatment" but too comprehensive a list means the patient may sue if the complication is not listed (Informed consent, 2012, AMA).

However, while patient self-determination is generally accepted, the standards of what constitutes informed consent vary from state to state. "Most of the literature and law in this area suggest one of three approaches" (Informed consent, 2012, Ethics in Medicine). The first approach, known as the "reasonable physician standard" asks what a 'reasonable' physician would believe is necessary to disclose to the patient. This can be problematic, since physicians tend to err on the side of nondisclosure quite often, since they may fear too much information may unduly confuse patients. "This standard is also generally considered inconsistent with the goals of informed consent as the focus is on the physician rather than on what the patient needs to know" (Informed consent, 2012, Ethics in Medicine). A well-meaning physician may withhold information about side effects he or she considers trivial but the patient does not.