Some say, "hindsight is 20/20" and there may be no better example than when we make a choice with unexpected and unfortunate results. Would we have chosen differently in retrospect? Clearly. Whether it is selecting the wrong restaurant or a less-than-ideal spouse, this is something we can all relate to, but they are choices that we have to accept every day. Such choices, while not about life or death, are often complicated by discussions with others and those who may have influenced us. Thus, our recollection, or lack thereof, of information gathered prior to making the ultimate decision can come into question.

Now, apply this to a decision that could be about life or death, and not about where one might go for dinner. Imagine a patient faced with a choice about a particular course of treatment or surgery. After the patient is provided with the pros and cons of their various options, potential side effects, and related alternatives, he or she makes a choice. Yet, despite proper care, an unfortunate outcome results. Do you think that patient (or anyone in the same situation) could accurately recall, months or even years later, all of the discussions and information gathered from the physician leading up to the decision? Could someone remain unemotional when thinking back on the choice of surgery or treatment?

In cases of medical malpractice and matters relating to informed consent, this is far more than a rhetorical question. This question is a critical part of the equation that physicians face when they are sued for medical malpractice relating to informed consent.