The therapeutic privilege
enables doctor to withhold information.
Not all physicians agreed with that practice, labeled therapeutic privilege
Not all physicians agreed with that practice, which was labeled therapeutic privilege
This principle is called therapeutic privilege, which was clearly enunciated in Nishi v.
In addressing the therapeutic privilege defense raised by the defendant, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that "the doctrine recognizes that the primary duty of a physician is to do what is best for his patient, and that a physician may withhold disclosure of information regarding any untoward consequences of a treatment where full disclosure will be detrimental to the patient's total care and best interest" (Nishi v.
Therapeutic privilege often is cited in the literature but should be an infrequently used exception to informed consent.
Some case law exists on the need to establish why the therapeutic privilege was justified as a rationale to not provide informed consent in a particular situation.
Occasionally, it may be appropriate to actually invoke the therapeutic privilege
of not informing patients of information that would be harmful, at least psychologically.
It was unable to decide on the therapeutic privilege
Although the emerging consensus is that therapeutic privilege
"should be c onstrued very narrowly and applied only in the most exceptional circumstances," (16) no such privilege applies in the research context.
This rule of disclosure has one exception, the therapeutic privilege
, in which the physician withholds information out of concern that it would harm the patient.
This is the therapeutic privilege
that can be traced back to Hippocratic writings and was firmly established by Percival in his Medical Ethics of 1803.