Maryland Medical Malpractice Informed Consent Important Decision
The backdrop for this decision involved a woman who was 32 weeks pregnant who had received an abnormal ultra-sound. She was not "informed" of the benefit of cesarean section and ten days later suffered a uterine collapse requiring emergency surgery.
The trial court had thrown out a substantial verdict saying that the "informed-consent" doctrine only applied to "affirmative violation of the patient's physical integrity."
The Court of Appeals ruled that this concept was wrong. In lay-person's terms something does not have to go wrong with a medical procedure to bring in to play informed-consent. Rather "it is the duty of a healthcare provider to inform a patient of material information" that "would be significant" "in deciding whether or not to submit to a particular procedure."
The Court correctly stated that actual physical contact with a medical procedure is not necessary as the doctrine is vital to "promote a patient's choice."