This is the rule in most states. But Scott v. Bradford takes a different approach.

Traditionally doctors were only required to provide the type of information that a reasonable doctor would have given. (Doctor standard)

Today, most courts require doctors to give patients the type of information that a reasonable patient would have wanted to hear. (Individual autonomy)

But what if the doctor fails to give the patient the necessary information? Most courts require the patient to show that but for the doctor's failure to provide the information, the reasonable patient would not have consented to the procedure. (Causation)

Isn't this causation requirement inconsistent with the theory of individual autonomy? Shouldn't it be enough that the patient show that she would not have had the surgery if the information had been provided? Shouldn't an unreasonable person have the right not to have surgery when provided with the information? Why else require that the information be given?

Notice that the unreasonable patient still has the difficult task of convincing a jury that he or she would not have consented to the surgery. How likely is it that the jury will believe that the patient is telling the truth?

Back to Assignment 3