Malpract ice Risk Assessm ent Among Different Approac hes For Informed Consent

Abstract Introduction: The standards for obtahing Thformed consent, set forth by the Hawaii Revised Statutes, establish that it is the physician's duty to disclose what a reasonable person objectively needs to hear in order to make an informed decision. It is the purpose of this study to report the opinions of medical malpractice attorneys to survey their opinion whether full or limited disclosure of alternative treat ments in informed consent is viewed as having a lower malpractice risk. Methods: Hawaii medical malpractice attorneys viewed a com pilation of arguments forand against both full and limited disclosure, and completed an opinion survey after reading samples of disclo sure statements h two different case scenarios: 1) a pediatric emergency department case involving a febrile child at risk for occult bacteremia, and 2) an obstetrics case Thvolving a woman with a postdate pregnancy. Results: A vast majority of respondents believe that, in general and in the obstetrics case, full disclosure results in less liability. In the pediatrics ED case, 46% chose full disclosure as having less liability, 38% believe that the same liability exists with both full and limited disclosure, and 15% believe that limited disclosure is asso ciated with less liability in this case. Conclusions: Hawaii attorneys with medical malpractice experi ence overwhelmingly agree that, in general, full disclosure is asso ciated will less medical legal liability. Full disclosure was also the option selected as associated with less liability by a majority of attorneys ha sample obstetrical case. Opinions were more diverse in the pediatrics ED case. Many attorneys stressed thatjudging the risk of liability in general is difficult, and should be done on a case by case basis