Update on informed consent law: The Johnson V. Kokemoor decision

Wisconsin Medical Journal

Volumn 96, Issue 8, 1997, Pages 58-61

  Icenogle, Daniel L ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHYSICIAN; REVIEW;

LEGAL APPROACH; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP;

ADULT; ANEURYSM; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; RISK; WISCONSIN;

EID: 0030789312     PISSN: 00436542     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (5)

1. Northern Securities Co. v. U.S., 193 U.S. 197, 400, 24 S.Ct. 436, 48 L.Ed. 679 (1904).
2. 199 Wis.2d 615, 545 N.W.2d 495 (1996).
3. For a more complete discussion, the reader is directed to Weisbard, "Informed Consent: The Law's Uneasy Compromise with Ethical Theory," 65 Nebraska Law Review 749-67 (1986).
4. Scaria v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 68 Wis, 2d, 1, 11, 227 N.W.2d 647 (1975).
5. Martin v. Richards, 192 Wis.2d 156, 531 N.W.2d 70 (1995). The case involved the decision to not transport a patient to another hospital that had a CT scanner, but to keep the patient at the local hospital. The parents were not informed of the possibility of a CT or its role in the evaluation of a head injury.