The legal concept of "informed consent" to medical treatment is often confusing to students and lawyers alike. This is in part because there is no single legal concept of informed consent. In law, the term relates to two different legal obligations. One is the fundamental and general obligation not to touch people without their consent. The other is an obligation specific to health practitioners to provide their patients with relevant information. Using the term "informed consent" to refer to either is misleading because it suggests the need, within a single legal rule, for both information and permission. However, depending on which legal obligation is at issue, only information or permission is likely to be relevant. This article disentangles the meanings of informed consent to help people better understand the relevant law. But the issue is not only one of doctrinal clarity: there are potential and actual negative consequences of confusing the issues, and these are explored. Thus, while the term informed consent is likely to remain ingrained, it is important to understand which obligation is at issue in a given case so that the law can be applied and developed in a way that protects the relevant interests at stake.
原文链接
分享
引用
