What central issue did Salgo v. Leland Stanford establish?

• A. The patient should be informed of all possible risks, benefits, and alternatives
• B. The patient should be informed only of risks if asked
• C. Physicians have a duty to disclose risks, benefits, and alternatives to the patient, which allows informed decision-making
• D. Informed consent is optional

Answer: (C)

The central issue is patient autonomy through informed consent. Salgo v. Leland Stanford established that physicians have a duty to disclose information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of proposed treatment so that a patient can make a voluntary and informed decision. This shifted medical practice from a paternalistic approach—where the doctor decides what you should do—to one where you are given the essential information needed to decide what happens to your body.

Context helps: before this case, consent was often seen as a formality or presumed if the patient appeared agreeable. Salgo clarified that the patient must be informed of material information that a reasonable person would want to know, including reasonable alternatives, so the decision reflects the patient’s values and preferences.

Why this answer fits best: it captures the duty to disclose comprehensive information necessary for informed decision-making, which is the heart of informed consent. The other ideas are not accurate: consent isn’t limited to information you must volunteer only if asked, it isn’t optional, and it isn’t limited to listing only risks without considering benefits and alternatives.