Show simple item record

dc.creatorPolewski, John Patrick
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-04T20:53:24Z
dc.date.available2020-03-04T20:53:24Z
dc.date.issued1984
dc.identifier.citation15 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 389en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2346/85704
dc.description.abstractThe doctrine of informed medical consent has been in a constant state of flux since its inception. The courts have recognized three profoundly different standards by which a physician's conduct is to be measured. Although all jurisdictions agree that the purpose of the doctrine of informed consent is to protect the patient's right of self-determination, neither the courts nor legal commentators agree on how the patient's rights are to be protected. This comment will briefly examine the three standards applied in nondisclosure cases, with particular emphasis on Texas law and the effect of the Texas Supreme Court's recent decision in Peterson v. Shields.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTexas Tech Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectMedical doctorsen_US
dc.subjectPhysiciansen_US
dc.subjectInformed consenten_US
dc.subjectMedical disclosureen_US
dc.subjectPatient’s rightsen_US
dc.subjectPeterson v. Shieldsen_US
dc.titleTexas Adopts an Objective Standard of Medical Disclosure: “Is There a Reasonable Layperson in the House?”en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record