Before the informed consent doctrine, which theory was used to hold physicians accountable?

The informed consent doctrine evolved to ensure that patients are adequately informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a treatment before consenting to it. Before this doctrine was widely accepted, the theory that was commonly used to hold physicians accountable was the concept of battery.

Battery, in a legal context, refers to the unauthorized touching or harmful contact with another person. In the realm of healthcare, if a physician performed a medical procedure without the patient’s consent, it could be classified as battery. This means that even if the procedure was medically indicated and performed competently, the lack of proper consent could expose the physician to a legal claim of battery. This principle underscores the importance of consent as a protective measure for patient autonomy and personal rights.

While negligence, malpractice, and misrepresentation are also significant in the evaluation of a physician's conduct, they involve different aspects of liability. Negligence relates to a breach of duty leading to patient harm, malpractice focuses on professional standards and deviations from the accepted standard of care, and misrepresentation involves false statements or deceit regarding treatment options. Thus, battery is specifically tied to the issue of consent, making it the appropriate answer in this context.