General Cases >> Consent >> Case 1 / Case 2 / Case 3 / Case 4 / Case 5 / Case 6 / Case 7 / Case 8

Canterbury v Spence 464 F 2d 772 (1972) (DC Cir)

Court decision

In overturning the lower court's judgment, Robinson J developed the 'prudent patient,' i.e. reasonable patient, test of disclosure:

"The context in which the duty of risk-disclosure arises is invariably the occasion for decision as to whether a particular treatment procedure is to be undertaken. To the physician, whose training enables a self-satisfying evaluation, the answer may seem clear, but it is the prerogative of the patient, not the physician, to determine for himself the direction in which his interests seem to lie. To enable the patient to chart his course understandably, some familiarity with the therapeutic alternatives and their hazards becomes essential...It is [the physician's] duty to warn of the dangers lurking in the proposed treatment, and that is surely a facet of due care. It is too, a duty to impart information which the patient has every right to expect...In our view, the patient's right of self-decision shapes the boundaries of the duty to reveal. That right can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an intelligent choice. The scope of the physician's communication to the patient, then, must be measured by the patient's need and that need is the information material to the decision. Thus the test for determining whether a particular peril must be divulged is its materiality to the patient's decision: All risks potentially affecting the decision must be unmasked...In broad outline, we agree that '[a risk is thus material when a reasonable person in what the physician knows or should know to be the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to the risks or cluster of risks in deciding whether or not to forego the proposed therapy."

Back