The doctrine of informed consent: a tale of two cultures and two legal traditions

In this article, the author compares and contrasts the notion of informed consent in medical decision making in the Western legal system with the traditional Jewish biblical legal system. Walter critically examines the philosophical underpinnings of disease and medical healing in both legal systems, and describes the practical consequences that emanate from the different ideologies in terms of the individual's rights of choice of treatment. She explains that the Western system is predicated on notions of individual autonomy and self determination. Patients therefore have the autonomous ability to select and direct their own medical therapy. By contrast, the traditional biblical system of law is based on the concept that the body does not belong to the individual. Instead, the body is given to man by God as a trust to respect and preserve. Therefore, the individual patients "has no absolute right to control his body and ... he has no real decision making power as to medical treatment choices." In the Jewish biblical tradition, consent is not necessary for obviously beneficial or obviously non-beneficial procedures; consent is only necessary in decisions with uncertain outcomes or when making choices between equal options. Patients are encouraged to seek the counsel of religious authorities and to conform to rabbinical interpretations of the traditional Jewish law.