How did British courts differ from U.S. courts in their approach to informed consent?

In the context of health law, British and U.S. courts have historically diverged significantly in their application of the doctrine of informed consent.

In the United States, the doctrine is robustly applied to promote patient self-determination. U.S. courts and commentators require that patients receive comprehensive information, including the nature and effects of a proposed treatment, its potential benefits and risks, available alternatives, and the consequences of refusing treatment. This approach is rooted in the belief that the patient, who has the most at stake, must be fully informed to make autonomous decisions.12

Conversely, British courts have traditionally rejected this expansive formulation. They have generally required that patients be provided with only very basic information regarding a treatment. This stance is often justified by the view that the average British citizen does not desire detailed medical information and that physicians typically do not provide it unless specifically requested. While both jurisdictions utilize similar functional tests to determine a patient's competence to consent, the scope of the information required to satisfy the legal standard of "informed" remains a key point of distinction.12