The physician must consider the potential benefits of the new procedure and then determine, through discussion with the patient, what value the patient places on those specific benefits.
Timothy K. Mackey, MAS and Bryan A. Liang, MD, JD, PhD
Studies show that clinical practice guidelines, used by an accused physician or by patients alleging a breach of standard care, have an impact on case outcomes.
The case of Johnson v Kokemoor illuminates the conflict between patients’ right to informed consent and clinicians’ need to learn through practice, a conflict that possibly could be resolved through greater transparency about clinicians’ experience or experience-dependent medical fees.
Allan B. Peetz, MD, Nicholas Sadovnikoff, MD, and Michael F. O’Connor, MD
Because of their serious medical conditions and the nature of the treatments, patients who are candidates for extracorporeal life support may not be able to give properly informed consent for the treatment.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(3):236-242. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.3.stas1-1503
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., may prevent consumers injured by medical devices that have FDA premarket approval from receiving compensation.
Does a surgeon’s complication rate in a randomized controlled trial constitute a “significant new finding” that must be reported to patients during the consent process?
According to documented studies, patients who have good relationships with their physicians are less likely to file complaints in the event of an adverse medical outcome.