Government-Scripted Consent: When Medical Ethics and Law Collide

In the September-October 2009 issue of the Hastings Center Report, Howard Minkoff and Mary Faith Marshall address the recently enacted policy in South Dakota that threatens to abrogate the informed consent process. A consent discussion grounded in uncompromising ideology is now the de facto and de jure standard in that state, argue Minkoff and Marshall, putting medical ethics and the law in direct conflict.  South Dakota's newly implemented requirements include a script that must be given to a woman prior to performing an abortion. "It requires recitation of a litany of 'facts,' many of which are untrue, write the authors." The effect is to replace informed consent — understood as a discussion of risks, benefits, and alternatives — with a coercive process focusing almost exclusively on risks, misinformation, and implied government opprobrium.

To view the full article for free, click below:

Government-Scripted Consent: When Medical Ethics and Law Collide