Finding the Middle Ground: Acuna v. Turkish and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Reaffirmation of a Doctor’s Role Under the Doctrine of Informed Consent in the Digital Age
Allyson M. Rucinski, 29 Pace L. Rev. 797 (2009)
But if the purpose behind the doctrine of informed consent is to ensure that patients make educated health care decisions, what is the role of the doctor if the “reasonable patient” is now an “informed consumer”? For general medical procedures, many doctors have resorted to computer generated printouts, prepackaged pharmaceutical marketing pamphlets, and website referrals to satisfy the bare minimum duty under the doctrine of informed consent. Conversely, some states have taken it upon themselves to over-legislate in the area of abortion by requiring doctors to make excessive disclosures that are arguably moral, philosophical, or religious in nature. There needs to be a middle ground between these two extremes. The New Jersey Supreme Court provides guidance as to what this middle ground should be in its decision in Acuna v. Turkish.
