This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David M. Cook, JD
Memphis, Tenn

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(15):1766-1769.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

I read the article entitled "Legal and Ethical Myths About Informed Consent"¹ with great interest, from the standpoint of a lawyer specializing for the past 20 years in the defense of medical malpractice claims against physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers in Memphis, Tenn, and its environs.

To my knowledge, there has never been a judgment against a defendant/physician in the State of Tennessee predicated solely on a theory of failure to provide the information required to procure informed consent. Implied in the concept of informed consent and the body of law that has grown up around it is the proposition that the plaintiff must testify convincingly that, had he or she known of the precise risk that did in fact occur, the procedure would have been deferred. If there is any sort of documentation that the patient has been advised of the possibility of something even as . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?