observing that the “‘reasonable man’ approach has been criticized by some commentators as backtracking on its own theory of self-determination. [It] certainly severely limits the protection granted an injured patient.”
How later courts described this case
- observing that the “‘reasonable man’ approach has been criticized by some commentators as backtracking on its own theory of self-determination. [It] certainly severely limits the protection granted an injured patient.”
- which appears to be the only court that affirmatively considered the issue and chose the subjective test
- "where full disclosure would be detrimental to a patient's total care and best interests a physician may withhold such disclosure, for example, where disclosure would alarm an emotionally upset or apprehensive patient" [footnote omitted]
- distinguishing between lack of informed consent as a negligence theory and lack of any consent as an intentional tort theory
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BARNES, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority opinion in all respects except I would adopt the reasonable man test set out in Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. den. 409 U.S. 1064 , 98 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 .
I am authorized to state that IRWIN, V. C. J., SIMMS, J., and REYNOLDS, Special Justice, join in the views expressed in this opinion.