The enforcement of the contractual relationship between the physician and the patient needs to be considered in light of state informed consent statutes. If the informed consent process is incomplete, the patient’s right to medical self-determination is jeopardized. So long as the practitioner complies with the informed consent provisions, the statutes provide a limitation on the right of a medical malpractice action by the patient for a claim based on the lack of informed consent.  The use of the informed consent process is a customary practice in the medical community and an established standard for health care providers to follow in providing information to a patient.   Physicians often rely on intermediaries, such as a nurse practitioner or a physician assistant to shift responsibilities from one party to another party to inform the patient.   The interpretation of the statutory provisions by physicians may present uncertainty because of recent court decisions and a multitude of scenarios. According to a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, the obligation of a physician to obtain the informed consent of the patient for a medical procedure is a non-delegable responsibility.  Prior research to examine the variances in the provisions associated with informed consent legislation within the United States has been limited. To address this gap in the literature, this paper will examine informed consent legislative trends including the duty of disclosure, the requirement of direct communication, the risks inherent in the proposed procedure, the acceptable alternative procedures and a description of the nature and purposes of the proposed procedure.

Keywords: informed consent, duty of disclosure, right of self-determination, patient autonomy, limitation of liability