The Wisconsin Supreme Court, after adopting the doctrine of the objective (reasonable) patient standard, expanded it in bold and innovative ways over nearly four decades, until the Wisconsin legislative and executive branches drastically reversed this course. The saga has implications for other jurisdictions considering adoption or expansion of the objective patient standard doctrine
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
E.Hamilton, Mythology (New York: Little Brown & Co., 1942): Daedalus, at 192-194.
2.
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914) at 93, 211 N.Y. 125.
3.
Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Board of Trustees, 154 Cal.App.2d 560, 317 P.2d 170 (1957)
4.
R.Faden, T. L.Beauchamp, and N. M. P.King, A History and Theory of Informed Consent (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986): at 145, fn 35.
Natanson v. Kline, 186 Kan. 393, 350 P.2d 1093 (1960).
7.
Canterbury v. Spence,464 F.2d 772, U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. (D.C. Cir. 1972).
8.
Canterbury v. Spence,464 F.2d at 787 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
9.
For the purpose of clarity, the objective standard set by the reasonable patient is referred to in this article as the “objective patient” standard to differentiate it from the professional standard of the reasonable physician.
10.
J. S.King and B.Moulton, “Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Decisionmaking,”American Journal of Law & Medicine32, no. 4 (2006): 429-501, at 429, 493-501. (Appendix), cited in B. R. Furrow, T. L. Greaney, S. H. Johnson, T. Stolzfus Jost, and R. L. Schwartz, “Informed Consent: The Physician's Obligation,” in Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co. 2013): at 217.
11.
Scaria v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 68 Wis. 2d 1, 227 N.W.2d 647 (1975).
12.
Id., at 20 (1975)
13.
Id., at 12 (1975).
14.
Wis. A.B. 941 (1981), enacted as Ch. 375, Laws of 1981 (May 6, 1982).
15.
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (1982).
16.
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (2) (1982).
17.
Wis. Stat. §448.30 (3) (1982).
18.
A.Meisel, “The Expansion of Liability for Medical Accidents: from Negligence to Strict Liability by Way of Informed Consent,”Nebraska Law Review56, no. 4 (1977): 51-152, available at <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol56/iss1/4> (last visited January 20, 2017).
19.
C. H.Braddock, K. A.Edwards, N. M.Hasenberg, T. L.Laid-ley, and L.Levinson, “Informed Decision Making in Outpatient Practice: Time to Get Back to Basics,”JAMA282, no. 24 (1999): 2313-2320.
20.
Martin v. Richards 92 Wis. 2d 156, 531 N.W.2d 70 (1995).
21.
Martin v. Richards, 192 Wis. 2d at 175 (1995).
22.
Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis. 2d 615, 639, 545 N.W.2d 495 (1996).
23.
Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis. 2d at 619 (1996).
24.
Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis. 2d at 639 (1996).
25.
SeeFurrow et al., supra note 10, at 218, note 4, and at 232, note 4.
26.
Bubb v. Brusky, 2009 WI 91 Wis. 2d 1, 768 N.W.2d 903.
27.
Bubb, 2009 WI 91. ¶3
28.
Bubb, 2009 WI 91 ¶71.
29.
Bubb, 2009 WI 91 ¶70.
30.
Jandre v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund, Physicians Ins. Co. of Wis. and Therese J. Bullis, M.D., 2012 WI 39; 330 Wis. 2d 50, 792 N.W.2d 558.
Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Wisconsin Medical Society and the Wisconsin Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, “Statement Concerning the Supreme Court Decision on Jandre v. Wisconsin, Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund. April 12, 2012, available at <http://www.wha.org/Data/Sites/1/pubarchive/news_releases/nr4-17-12jandre.pdf> (last visited January 23, 2017).
T. M.Pope and M.Hexum, “Legal Briefing: Informed Consent in the Clinical Context,”Journal of Clinical Ethics25, no. 2 (2014): 152-174, at 157.
49.
Wisconsin Constitution Annotated, Article I. Declaration of Rights. Sec. 9, Remedy for Wrongs, Last Amended at the April 2015 Election, published July 12, 2016, available at <https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi/000226/000010> (last visited January 23, 2017).
