Texas Adopts an Objective Standard of Medical Disclosure: “Is There a Reasonable Layperson in the House?”

The 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.