Informed written consent; explanation of proposed treatment, outcome, and risks
Applied in 4 court decisions — leading case Lasley v. Moss (2007)
Most recently applied in Francisco Perez, Jr., Individually, and by Laura Aguirre his natural guardian and next friend, and Laura Aguirre, Individually v. Michael Hu, M.D. St. Catherine Hospital of East Chicago Indiana, Inc. (November 2017)
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.13.
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Sec. 3. The explanation given in accordance with section 2(3) of this chapter must include the following information:
(1) The general nature of the patient's condition.
(2) The proposed treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
(3) The expected outcome of the treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
(4) The material risks of the treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
(5) The reasonable alternatives to the treatment, procedure, examination, or test.
Official source: Indiana General Assembly. Reproduced from public-domain Indiana statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.