Right!
Notice that the rule in Scott v. Bradford is the minority rule.
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?
Back to the Problem Page