Maryland
How Canterbury v. Spence applies in Maryland: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Maryland recognizes the principles of informed consent as established in Canterbury v. Spence, emphasizing the physician's duty to disclose risks and options associated with medical treatment. Informed consent is integral to patient autonomy and medical decision-making in Maryland.
In Maryland, healthcare providers must disclose material risks that a reasonable patient would consider significant in making a treatment decision, aligning with the reasonable person standard articulated in Canterbury.
The court held that physicians must provide adequate information to enable patients to make informed decisions, reinforcing the principles of informed consent.
The court found that failure to disclose relevant risks can lead to liability if a patient suffers harm that could have been avoided with appropriate information.
This case affirmed that lack of informed consent is actionable and emphasized the importance of transparency in medical treatments.
Maryland mirrors the federal approach to informed consent, adhering to the standard set forth by the American Medical Association and similar federal statutes. However, Maryland courts may apply a slightly broader interpretation of what constitutes 'material risks', focusing on the patient's perspective.
Expect questions relating to informed consent principles based on Canterbury v. Spence, particularly concerning disclosures required by healthcare providers in Maryland.