From Tragedy to Catastrophe: Lawyers and the Bureaucratization of Informed Consent

5 Pages Posted: 30 Jun 2008  

Alan Meisel

University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Date Written: June, 27 2008

Abstract

In Silent World of Physician and Patient, Jay Katz recognizes the distinction between the idea of informed consent and the legal doctrine of informed consent. Prof. Katz wrote so eloquently about what happened to the idea of informed consent when it fell into the hands of lawmakers. This paper discusses what happened to the legal doctrine of informed consent when it fell into the hands of lawyers and health care managers. Instead of focusing on the goals that the requirement of obtaining informed consent sought to promote - patient self-determination, informed decision-making, and protection from harm chief among them - lawyers for doctors and hospitals instead focused on documenting whether information had been disclosed, even if in fact it had not been. Thus the centerpiece of informed consent became the consent form rather than the process of disclosure - and the opportunity it provided for discussion between physician and patient.

Keywords: informed consent, bureaucracy, litigation, malpractice, shared decisionmaking, consent form

Suggested Citation

Meisel, Alan, From Tragedy to Catastrophe: Lawyers and the Bureaucratization of Informed Consent (June, 27 2008). Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2006; U. of Pittsburgh Legal Studies Research Paper Series. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1152328

Alan Meisel (Contact Author)

University of Pittsburgh School of Law ( email )

3900 Forbes Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
United States
412-648-1384 (Phone)
412-648-2649 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
65
Rank
283,732
Abstract Views
611