Question

A woman in her mid-thirties suffered from a rare malignancy in her brain and around her spinal cord. She had surgery, and most of the tumor mass was removed, but residual tumor remained in the brain and around the spinal cord. The doctors informed her that chemotherapy and radiation were possible treatment options but could cause serious problems such as sepsis, a permanent loss of IQ and stature, and even death. She wished to proceed with the therapy.

After undergoing aggressive chemotherapy and radiation, she did independent research and read of several drugs being administered for cancer in other states that were unapproved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and were illegal in their home state but were touted by physicians using them as "miracle cures." The woman is considering suing her physician for failure to disclose alternative treatments, thus depriving her of informed consent.
A court awarded summary judgment to the physician.
In your opinion, does the court’s decision seem warranted? Why or why not?
Under the doctrine of informed consent, should a physician be responsible for informing patients of all treatment options, even if some of the treatments are illegal or not yet proven effective? Explain your answer.

Answer 1

The court's decision seems warranted. Under the doctrine of informed consent, physicians are responsible for informing patients of legally available and proven effective treatment options.

Step-by-step explanation:

The court's decision to award summary judgment to the physician seems warranted in this case. Under the doctrine of informed consent, physicians have a responsibility to inform patients of all treatment options that are legally available and proven effective. However, they are not expected to disclose illegal or unproven treatments. This is because such treatments may not have undergone the necessary testing and regulation to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and thus may pose significant risks to the patient.

In this case, the woman's physician likely fulfilled their duty of informed consent by discussing the valid treatment options, such as chemotherapy and radiation, and explaining the potential risks and benefits associated with them. The physician was not obligated to disclose or recommend illegal or unapproved treatments that could be potentially harmful.