Consent and Informed Consent

Guide to: TRUMAN v. THOMAS, 611 P.2d 902 (1980)

What is the issue before the court?

What was her history with Dr. Thomas?

How long had she been seeing him?

How was the tumor discovered?

How long before she saw Ritter?

What did he find?

Why might the delay have been important?

What did the expert say he should have done?

What did the experts say about counseling about PAP smears?

How was it established that it was standard of care to recommend a yearly PAP smear?

What did he tell her about PAP smears?

What was the dog that did not bark in the medical records?

Evidence question: how did he fail to establish a pattern in talking to patients and why does it matter?

Did he do a pelvic exam? Why did she refuse the PAP smear then?

What was plaintiff's first theory?

Did the court give the instructions?

What was the jury verdict?

What were the basic characteristics of the physician-patient relationship that the court earlier identified in Cobbs?

What kind of legal relationship do these describe?

What was the standard of Cobbs?

What makes information material?

What about special circumstances?

What type of standard is this?

What was the key holding in Cobbs:

What about the risks of a PAP smear or other laboratory test?

What are the real risks in a PAP smear?

What if the test is risky?

Why does Thomas claim Cobbs does not apply to him?

Why does he not have to explain the risks of not having a test?

What is the legal theory?

Where does the fiduciary duty come in to refute Thomas's defense?

How did Thomas attack materiality?

Why is this attack on materiality logically unsound?

If the danger of cervical cancer were generally known, would Truman automatically lose?

What was the key missing piece of info?

How did her refusal to take the test because of cost or because she did not feel like it undermine his case?

What could have been a valid reason to refuse the test?

How did the court distinguish Helling v. Carey from this case?

Why does this court reject Helling out of hand?

What was his criminal conviction?

Why couldn't it be used for impeachment?

What could it have impeached?

What was the dissent concerned about?

What did the dissent say a doc would have to do comply with this duty in a general exam?

Why is this not true?