Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:57:39.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cancer and the Law of Informed Consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Sheila Taub
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The law of informed consent is in a state of flux. Originally a judicially-created doctrine, the doctrine varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in its theoretical basis for imposing liability (battery vs. negligence), the scope of the physician's duty to disclose (the “professional” vs. the. “prudent patient” standard), and, where negligence is the basis for the action, the requirement for finding proximate causation (subjective vs. objective basis). Many states have recently enacted statutes on informed consent which differ markedly in their provisions. Coexistent with this uncertainty about the precise form that the law should take, and perhaps underlying it, is a basic uncertainty about the purposes and rationale behind the informed consent doctrine, the feasibility of executing its dictates, and the effects of its application on the delivery of health care.

Type
Legal Problems in Medical Practice
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1982 , pp. 61 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

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.)

References

Almquist, N.J., When the Truth Can Hurt: Patient-Mediated Informed Consent in Cancer Therapy, University of California at Los Angeles/Alaska Law Review 9(2): 143, 149–50 (1980).Google Scholar
Schloendorff v. Soc'y of New York Hosp., 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914).Google Scholar
Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170, 181 (Cal. App. 1957).Google Scholar
Natanson v. Kline, 350 P.2d 1093 (Kan. 1960).Google Scholar
Id. at 1106.Google Scholar
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
Id. at 787.Google Scholar
Annotation, Modern Status of Views as to General Measure of Physician's Duty to Inform Patient of Risks of Proposed Treatment. 88 A.L.R. 3rd 1008.Google Scholar
Robertson, G., Informed Consent to Medical Treatment, Law Quarterly Review 97:102 (1981).Google ScholarPubMed
A battery is the intentional, unprivileged touching of another. Prosser, W.L., Handbook of the Law of Torts (West, St. Paul) (1971) at 34.Google Scholar
Negligence refers to conduct which falls below the standard of care required by law under the applicable circumstances; the standard generally being that of the reasonable prudent person under those circumstances. Unlike battery, negligence is not an intentional tort. Black's Law Dictionary 931 (5th ed. 1979).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1905).Google Scholar
Salgo, , supra note 3, at 181.Google Scholar
Katz, J., Informed Consent: A Fairy Tale? Law's Vision, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 39:137 (Winter 1977) [hereinafter cited as Katz, Informed Consent].Google ScholarPubMed
Canterbury v. Spence, supra note 6, at 789.Google Scholar
Katz, , Informed Consent, supra note 14, at 156.Google Scholar
Id. at 156-57.Google Scholar
Id at 155, n.57.Google Scholar
See Nishi v. Hartwell. 473 P.2d 116 (Haw. 1970); Brigham v. Hicks, 260 S.E.2d 435 (N.C. App. 1979).Google Scholar
Oken, D., What to Tell Cancer Patients: A Study of Medical Attitudes. Journal of the American Medical Association 175(13): 1120 (April 1, 1961).Google ScholarPubMed
Novack, D.H., Changes in Physicians’ Attitudes Toward Telling the Cancer Patient, Journal of the American Medical Association 241(9): 897 (March 2, 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, R., Letter, Anxiety in Cancer Patients, Medical Journal of Australia, p. 674 (June 28, 1980).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. §78-14-5(2)(e); Fla. Stat. Ann. §768.46(4)(a) (West).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 §1909.Google Scholar
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 4590(i) (Vernon). For a discussion of the various types of informed consent statutes, see generally Victor, M.G., Informed Consent. Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 27(2): 138, 159–1 (Fall 1980).Google ScholarPubMed
See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 111, §70E(h) (Lawyer's Co-op); Cal. Health & Safety §1704.5 (West).Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., Breast Cancer. The Treatment of Choice. Hastings Center Report 10(2): 27 (April 1980).Google ScholarPubMed
Stehlin, J.S., Treatment of Carcinoma of the Breast. Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics 149(6): 911 (December 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
IdGoogle Scholar
Id. at 914.Google Scholar
Id. at 921.Google Scholar
Id. at 915.Google Scholar
Veronesi, U., Comparing Radical Mastectomy with Quadrantectomy, Axillary Dissection, and Radiotherapy in Patients with Small Cancers of the Breast. New England Journal of Medicine 305(1): 6 (July 2, 1981).Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, R.F., Letter to the Editor, New England Journal of Medicine 305(21): 1283 (November 19, 1981).Google Scholar
Bross, I.D.J., Letter to the Editor, New England Journal of Medicine 305(21): 1283 (November 19, 1981).Google Scholar
Langone, J., Breast Cancer. Debate Over Surgery, Discover 2(9): 24 (September 1981).Google Scholar
A rational decision will be defined here as one which, in the light of the available medical evidence, maximizes the patient's chances for prolonging life and fostering health. Many will doubtless object to this definition; others may claim that there is no single rational decision for a particular patient. The above definition is offered for the benefit of those who feel that a definition is called for.Google Scholar
See Langone, , supra note 36, at 27.Google Scholar
Fox, M.S., On the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Cancer, Journal of the American Medical Association 241(5): 489 (February 2, 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
See Stehlin, , supra note 28.Google Scholar
See Massachusetts and California statutes, supra note 26.Google Scholar
Courts however are free to impose a higher (or different) standard. For a case not decided on informed consent doctrine, but where there was a judicially imposed standard of care. see Helling v. Carey, 519 P.2d 981 (Wash. 1974).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Hofbauer v. Hofbauer. 393 N.E.2d 1009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979); but see In re Custody of a Minor (Chad Green). 393 N.E.2d 837 (Mass. 1978).Google Scholar
Methods of Testing for Cancer Drugs are Criticized, New York Times, November 7, 1981, at A28.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 546.103(c) (1978).Google Scholar
See Herbert, V., Informed Consent—A Legal Evaluation, Cancer 46(4): 1043, 1043 (August 1980); Goldenberg I., quoted in Kraft R.B., The Breast Cancer Controversy and its Implications for the Informed Consent Doctrine. Journal of Legal Medicine 2(1): 47, 62 (October 1980).Google Scholar
Muss, H.B., Written Informed Consent in Patients with Breast Cancer. Cancer 43(4): 1549 (April 1979).Google ScholarPubMed
Id. at 1555.Google Scholar
Id. at 1556.Google Scholar
Kennedy, B.J. Lillehaugen, A., Patient Recall of Informed Consent. Medical and Pediatric Oncology 7(2):173 (1979).Google ScholarPubMed
Morrow, G., A Simple Technique for Increasing Cancer Patients’ Knowledge of Informed Consent to Treatment. Cancer 42(2): 793 (August 1978).Google ScholarPubMed
Grundner, T.M., On the Readability of Surgical Consent Forms, New England Journal of Medicine 302(16): 900 (April 17, 1980). On the general subject of patients’ failure to comprehend and recall disclosures, see Cassileth B.R., Informed Consent—Why Are Its Goals Imperfectly Realized? New England Journal of Medicine 302(16): 896 (April 17, 1980).Google ScholarPubMed
Meisel, A. Roth, L.H., What We Do and Do Not Know About Informed Consent. Journal of the American Medical Association 246(21): 2473 (November 27, 1981).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Pegram v. Sisco, 406 F. Supp. 776 (W.D. Ark. 1976); Ahern v. Veterans’ Administration. 537 F.2d 1098 (10th Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
Truman v. Thomas, 611 P.2d 902 (Cal. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 909.Google Scholar
Id. at 910.Google Scholar
Id. at 906.Google Scholar
Helling v. Carey, supra note 42.Google Scholar
Katz, , Informed Consent, supra note 14, at 139.Google Scholar