Catalano v. Moreland holds that adequacy of informed consent cannot be determined by which factor?

• A. Hospital bylaws
• B. Adequacy cannot be determined by hospital bylaws; what a reasonable medical practitioner would disclose is the standard
• C. Insurance coverage dictates adequacy
• D. The patient’s preference alone decides adequacy

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is how we determine whether a disclosure in informed consent is adequate. Informed consent is evaluated against what a reasonable medical practitioner would disclose in the same situation, not against internal rules or other outside factors. Catalano v. Moreland emphasizes that hospital bylaws cannot set the standard for adequacy. Instead, the physician’s duty is defined by professional norms—the information a reasonably prudent clinician would share about risks, alternatives, and consequences relevant to the patient’s decision. Insurance coverage or the patient’s personal preferences do not establish the legal bar for what must be disclosed; they can influence decisions, but they do not determine adequacy on their own. So the correct understanding is that adequacy is measured by the standard of what a reasonable medical practitioner would disclose.