California
How Canterbury v. Spence applies in California: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
California law has adopted similar principles to those established in Canterbury v. Spence regarding the duty of healthcare providers to obtain informed consent from patients. The basis for informed consent is rooted in the standard of what a reasonable patient would want to know, reflecting a blend of personal autonomy and medical duty.
Health care providers must disclose all significant risks and alternatives to a proposed treatment that a reasonable patient would consider important to make an informed decision.
The court held that a physician must inform a patient of the risks and benefits of a proposed treatment, setting the foundation for informed consent in California law.
This case reaffirmed that informed consent requires a thorough discussion of risks and alternatives, asserting that patients must be allowed to weigh their treatment options.
The court emphasized that failure to obtain informed consent may lead to liability for medical malpractice if a patient suffers harm due to undisclosed risks.
While the federal standard for informed consent requires adequate disclosure of risks, California law provides a more patient-centric approach that emphasizes what a reasonably prudent patient would want to know. This distinction allows for a broader interpretation of informed consent in the patient’s interest.
Informed consent cases, including Canterbury v. Spence and related California cases, are frequently tested on the California bar exam, with a focus on the plaintiff's burden of proof regarding disclosures.