Informed Consent: The Canterbury V. Spence Court Case

Legally, our society has become more litigious as a valid consent is beneficial to protect both parties. A person could accuse a healthcare professional or researcher of trespass and assault if the person did not give their consent or if it was not voluntarily. If an individual is not sufficiently informed of the consequences of their decision and they suffer as a result, they can accuse the healthcare professional or researcher of negligence. This is the claim that had been introduced in the Canterbury v. Spence Court case, which argued for a reasonable patient standard with respect to informed consent from a patient’s physician. The procedural legality of the American justice system has indeed led Katz to raise concerns over the very implications …show more content…
However, consent goes beyond legitimizing actions that would otherwise be unlawful. There are differing opinions on the strong reliance on informed consent. In treatment settings, is it ever possible to inform someone sufficiently on the complexities of a surgical procedure or a treatment regime so that a person fully understands the implications of their decision? Some people when faced with complex descriptions or multiple pages of information to join a clinical trial simply sign consent forms without properly reading or understanding the information. Though some may claim that it is too tedious, expensive, and time consuming to obtain consent from each person, it is pertinent that a patient be asked for consent for all uses of an individual’s healthcare information otherwise it can be classified as a breach of an individual’s privacy. Balancing these opposing views is difficult. Regardless, informed consent is an essential part of the interaction between a healthcare professional or a researcher and an individual, and is seen as one of the core fundamentals in the ethical conduct of treatment and