Consent and Informed Consent

Guide to: ARATO v. AVEDON 858 P.2d 598 (Cal 1993)

Why was Mrs Arato consenting? 

Is this proper? 

What is the correct legal approach to this?

What was the waiver of informed consent?

Is this waiver a smart idea? What are the risks to the surgeon?

How do you avoid conflicting testimony at trial?

Did they tell him that pancreatic cancer is nearly always fatal?

Why might Mr. Arato have a better than average chance?

What could this FAM therapy buy Atato?

Why did they say they did not tell him the expected life expectancy for the untreated cancer?

What was he told?

Did the family ask any questions? Why are questions important?

What was he told about the FAM therapy?

What is the evidence that Arato knew the risks?

What was Plaintiff's inverse informed consent case?

What instructions did Plaintiffs want?

What instructions did they get?

Additional instructions

What did the jury do?

What did the court of appeals want him told?

What was wrong with the instructions?

What was the problem with defendant's experts?

What did the SC like about the instructions?

Why did the court rule that Arato was not entitled to statistical life-expectancy tables?

How did the court answer's plaintiff's claim that he should have been given info so he could change his investments?

What did defendant's experts testify to?

When is expert testimony as to what to tell the patient relevant? 

What will you always need testimony for?

What about the "do the best for the patient" instruction?