He never said D.S. was an option

Separate high court rulings in Maryland and Wisconsin may impose greater liability risks on physicians who fail to tell patients about treatment options.

Doctors must inform patients of all relevant treatment alternatives and the risks, according to unanimous decisions issued separately July 24 by the Maryland Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The two courts also clarified that proof of medical negligence is not required for plaintiffs to bring an informed-consent claim.

"The gravamen of an informed consent claim ... is a health care provider's duty to communicate information to enable a patient to make an intelligent and informed choice," the Maryland court said. "The law does not allow a physician to substitute his judgment for that of the patient," judges said, citing a court precedent.
....
Maryland medical liability defense attorney J. Mark Coulson said the ruling there gives plaintiffs another avenue for recovery even when a doctor has met the standard of care.
...
Plaintiff lawyers, on the other hand, view the decisions as a reaffirmation of doctors' existing obligations to continuously involve patients in medical decision-making.

"Why should a doctor decide whether a patient gets a particular therapy, or surgery or nothing?" asked Henry E. Dugan Jr., a plaintiff attorney in the Maryland case. "Any one of those may be acceptable to the medical profession, but not necessarily to the individual patient. So why shouldn't the patient have a say?"
...
Juries in both cases found no deficiencies in the doctors' care. The physicians argued that because they adequately informed the patients of the diagnosis and proposed treatment, they should not be held liable.

The Maryland and Wisconsin high courts found that the other treatment options were equally valid under the standard of care and that juries could conclude physicians should have disclosed them to their patients. The courts said informed consent claims depended not on the doctors' actions, but on a patient's right to know.

"These are two separate responsibilities," said Lynn R. Laufenberg, past president of the Wisconsin Assn. for Justice. The trial lawyers organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Wisconsin case.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reaffirmed that state law requires doctors to tell patients about "all alternate, viable medical modes of treatment, including diagnosis, as well as the benefits and risks of such treatments."

Maryland judges similarly found that doctors could be liable for withholding or failing to provide information relevant to deciding a particular course of treatment. In a rare move, the court concluded that a precedent was interpreted incorrectly as limiting informed consent claims to cases in which a patient underwent a medical procedure and the doctor failed to inform the patient of the risks of that treatment.

~~~~~
Hmm, maybe I should move my legal career in a different direction?  I would derive a great deal of pleasure in suing the Lapband and RNY mill surgeons who provide no information or incorrect and derogatory information about the DS.

DSers: PAY IT FORWARD!  High wt/current/post-recon goal: 293/169/160
My posts disseminating information about the DS are intended for pre-ops and potential revision patients only.  If something I write offends you, in particular, if you are a post-op from a non-DS WLS that I am comparing unfavorably to the DS, remember your reaction is your choice.  Use the block button if my posts upset you.  6+years out, I eat 3000+ calories/day, absorb less than half of that (high protein, high fat) and I'm still losing weight very slowly.  You can't beat that with a stick! Come learn more on the DS Forum Message Board.