Washington
How Canterbury v. Spence applies in Washington: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Washington follows a patient-centered approach to informed consent, aligning with the principles from Canterbury v. Spence. The state emphasizes the necessity of disclosing risks that a reasonable patient would consider significant in making a decision about treatment.
In Washington, healthcare providers must inform patients of the material risks associated with treatment that a reasonable person in the patient's position would want to know, following the precedent set in Canterbury v. Spence.
The court held that a university's failure to disclose significant risks associated with a medical procedure constitutes a breach of the informed consent requirement.
The court ruled that the Department of Corrections was liable for failing to inform an inmate of potential side effects of medication prescribed during treatment.
In this case, the court found that a dentist’s inadequate disclosure of treatment risks led to a successful informed consent claim.
Washington's informed consent standard is similar to the federal standard, which also requires disclosure of material risks. However, Washington places a greater emphasis on the patient's perspective, focusing on what a reasonable patient would want to know, whereas federal standards may center more on the physician's discretion.
Understanding the principles of informed consent as established in Canterbury v. Spence is crucial for the Washington bar exam, particularly in torts and healthcare liability questions.