The physician–patient relationship is anchored in trust. Historically the relationship has been a paternalistic one, with the patient expected to trust the physician's training and skills in doing what is “best” for the patient. But medical knowledge has expanded, as have treatment options and knowledge of the risks of treatment. The physician must now possess volumes of specialized knowledge about procedures and treatments, side effects and alternatives, drugs and their contraindications. Information has become a companion to trust. The patient, while (...) still dependent on the physician's expertise, now wants information about choices and hazards in treatment. Expanded choice has made the patient a consumer of healthcare and its risks rather than a passive recipient of treatment from the professional. (shrink)

Although long touted as an ethical and legal requirement, some clinicians still seem to offer less than fully adequate informed consent processes; similarly the counseling of patients and families, particularly about post-intervention scenarios, is often perfunctory at best. Keyed to a narrative of a patient's experience with surgery for a deviated septum, this article reflects on why such less than adequate clinician behaviors tend to occur and what might be done about them. Certain legal misconceptions about informed consent are highlighted (...) in this reflection, as well as why certain clinicians seem to take such a narrow view of their responsibilities to patients. Further reference in this regard is also made to a recently constructed module on informed consent for medical residents. In it, though legal requirements for informed consent are reviewed, the basic perspective taken regards informed consent as a clinical intervention that pursues certain basic goods and values, only one of which lies in determining when legal closure for such processes has occurred. (shrink)