Crisis and informed consent: analysis of a law-medicine malocclusion

Many individuals develop a temporary state of cognitive and emotional impairment after being diagnosed with catastrophic illness. Thus, when crucial decisions about medical treatment are required, they are unable to assimilate information; or worse, the legal need to be informed can rival a psychological desire to not be informed. The Canadian informed consent doctrine is unresponsive to crisis and clinically impracticable, and so paradoxically compromises the integrity and autonomy it was designed to protect. Many aspects of the physician-patient relationship and clinical setting also undermine the philosophical values enshrined in this doctrine. This further jeopardizes the individual's integrity. The Article explores proposals for change such as delaying the informing and consenting, improving the concept of consent, and improving the role of the physician.