Pulling Out the Rug on Informed Consent — New Legal Threats to Clinicians and Patients

This perspective article examines new legal developments in Utah that allow minors who previously consented to gender-affirming care to revoke that consent retroactively until age 25. The legislation enables malpractice claims against clinicians even when care was provided with appropriate informed consent at the time. The authors argue that this legal framework creates instability in clinician–patient relationships and undermines trust in informed consent processes. The article raises concerns that such laws may extend beyond gender-affirming care to affect other politically sensitive or contested medical services, threatening broader access to healthcare.

This perspective article examines new legal developments in Utah that allow minors who previously consented to gender-affirming care to revoke that consent retroactively until age 25. The legislation enables malpractice claims against clinicians even when care was provided with appropriate informed consent at the time. The authors argue that this legal framework creates instability in clinician–patient relationships and undermines trust in informed consent processes. The article raises concerns that such laws may extend beyond gender-affirming care to affect other politically sensitive or contested medical services, threatening broader access to healthcare.