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

Recent legislative efforts in multiple U.S. states have sought to limit access to gender-affirming care, introducing novel legal tactics that may impact informed consent across other medical areas. While initial restrictions have primarily targeted minors, emerging laws now enable patients to retroactively revoke their consent before the age of 25. This development raises serious concerns about the stability of medical consent principles, introducing litigation risks that may deter clinicians from offering care.

The article examines Utah’s amended Health Care Malpractice Act, which allows individuals to withdraw informed consent given for gender-related treatments. This reversal of legally valid consent means medical providers could face lawsuits years after delivering care even when all standard consent protocols were followed. The law could expand beyond gender-affirming treatment, affecting other procedures, including hormonal therapy, breast reduction, and reproductive healthcare.

Beyond Utah, the authors warn of potential spillover effects, arguing that similar state-based restrictions could threaten informed consent protections in other politically contested medical areas, including contraception, vaccination, fertility treatment, and end-of-life care. The erosion of legal trust in informed consent may discourage clinicians from providing essential services, ultimately restricting patient access to evidence-based care.

Recent legislative efforts in multiple U.S. states have sought to limit access to gender-affirming care, introducing novel legal tactics that may impact informed consent across other medical areas. While initial restrictions have primarily targeted minors, emerging laws now enable patients to retroactively revoke their consent before the age of 25. This development raises serious concerns about the stability of medical consent principles, introducing litigation risks that may deter clinicians from offering care.

The article examines Utah’s amended Health Care Malpractice Act, which allows individuals to withdraw informed consent given for gender-related treatments. This reversal of legally valid consent means medical providers could face lawsuits years after delivering care even when all standard consent protocols were followed. The law could expand beyond gender-affirming treatment, affecting other procedures, including hormonal therapy, breast reduction, and reproductive healthcare.

Beyond Utah, the authors warn of potential spillover effects, arguing that similar state-based restrictions could threaten informed consent protections in other politically contested medical areas, including contraception, vaccination, fertility treatment, and end-of-life care. The erosion of legal trust in informed consent may discourage clinicians from providing essential services, ultimately restricting patient access to evidence-based care.