ABSTRACT
The concept of informed consent is well established in law; competent patients have a right to make informed treatment decisions for themselves, free from coercion. The translation of this seemingly straightforward principle into clinical practice, however, has been fraught with confusion and dissent while courts have expanded the liability of practitioners for failing to obtain informed consent for psychiatric treatments (Beahrs and Gutheil 2001). As Roth (1985) notes, the concept is relatively new, the term ‘informed consent’ having first been introduced in a 1957 California case, Salgo v. Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees. The concept has evolved since Salgo, influenced by new case law, ethical considerations and changed standards of clinical practice (Meisel and Kabnick 1980).
