Torts

Canterbury v. Spence — Study Notes

Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)

Study notes for Canterbury v. Spence: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

A physician's duty to obtain informed consent requires disclosure of material risks and alternatives based on a patient-centered standard.
Professor Notes

In Canterbury v. Spence, the court fundamentally shifted the standard for informed consent in medical practice from a physician-centered standard to a patient-centered materiality standard. The decision emphasized the need for physicians to disclose not just the risks associated with a procedure, but also alternatives and the probability of risks occurring in a way that a typical patient would find material. This case is pivotal in understanding how consent is obtained in medical treatments and the rights of patients in understanding their treatments. Professors will often highlight the implications this case holds for patient autonomy and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare providers.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Discuss the standard of informed consent that the court established in this case.
  2. 2What implications does this case have for the practice of medicine regarding patient communication?
  3. 3How does the objective prudent-patient test measure causation in informed consent?
  4. 4Why did the court conclude that expert testimony was not necessary to establish the duty to disclose?
  5. 5What led to the reversal of the directed verdict for the hospital in this case?
Mnemonic Device

I CAN: Informed Consent Requires Awareness of Negligence.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of HealthCruzan deals with the right to refuse treatment, whereas Canterbury focuses on the obligation of clinicians to inform patients about risks and alternatives.
Schloendorff v. Society of New York HospitalSchloendorff establishes the necessity of informed consent but does not specify a patient-centered materiality standard as Canterbury does.
Riley v. HiggasonRiley emphasizes informed consent but centers on the need for adequate disclosure of potential outcomes, not patient-centered standards.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Advocating for a patient-centered approach supports greater patient autonomy, ensuring that patients can make informed decisions about their health care.

Against the Rule

Critics argue that strict adherence to a materiality standard may overwhelm patients with information, potentially leading to indecision or anxiety regarding treatment options.

Class Discussion Points
  • The significance of adopting a materiality standard in informed consent.
  • The role of patient autonomy in healthcare decisions.
  • The implications of this case on future medical malpractice litigation.
  • The necessity of communication skills in the physician-patient relationship.
  • The potential challenges in applying an objective prudent-patient standard in practice.
Exam Angle

Exam questions may focus on the evolution of informed consent principles, implications for medical practice, or the necessity of expert testimony in negligence claims and informed consent matters.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.