CAS PH 251 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Disclose, Fiduciary
2 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Informed Consent
Informed Consent
• Before this concept, doctors would withhold information (maliciously or non-
maliciously) from patients who would later on die
o Reasons to withhold information: non-maleficence (ex: protecting against
psychological harm)
o This is a serious infringement of Kant’s absolutism and respect for an individual’s
autonomy
▪ Respect for an individual’s autonomy contradicts the principle beneficence
(keeping the patient’s best interests in mind)
▪ This conflict has been resolved in the favor of respecting an individual’s
autonomy
• The duty to disclose information goes beyond telling the truth
o This involves giving the necessary information to allow patients make
autonomous decisions consistent with their values and beliefs
o Requires doctors to engage with their patients in order to fully inform and help
them
▪ Before, healing/treatment benefits would outweigh the costs and suffice as
“helping”
▪ However, the doctrine of informed consent took off in the late twentieth
century and established rules/procedures for doctors
Canterbury v. Science (1972)
• Overview:
o Canterbury – typist for the FBI, saw a doctor for his back pain (eventually leading
to the diagnosis of a ruptured disk)
o Canterbury’s Mother – was told the surgery was not dangerous
▪ While recovering from the surgery, Canterbury fell out of his hospital bed
which resulted in eventual paralysis of his body from the waist down
o The Issue – did the doctor truly disclose all information to Canterbury and his
mother? Or did he violate the right of Canterbury to have certain information
disclosed to him and inherently not perform his duty as a doctor?
▪ It was ruled that although there was no violation of battery, there was a
violation of informed consent (Canterbury agreed to have his back fixed
but was not able to make a proper and full decision because of the lack of
thorough and relevant information)
• Question: Where did this “duty” come from? What does this “duty” entail?
o There is a distinction between battery (unauthorized touching) and informed
consent
▪ The idea of battery is rooted in fundamental laws in that people have a
right to how their bodies are touched/handled (ex: if you are scheduled for
surgery on your arm and doctors fix your back, this is technically battery)
▪ The idea of informed consent is authorizing information you have
thoroughly considered
• Question: Should the patient be responsible for acquiring all the information necessary?
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
