I'm all Schiavoed out.

I did read the post that you link to. I'd like to just say this. I am as anti-euthanasia as anyone I know. I think Kevorkian is a mass murderer and should be tried and executed. This wasn't that, and I hate that I'm being grouped with the Hemlock Society for simply saying that the right to refuse care is important and different than wanting to have a doctor kill you.
 

What if you are for having a doctor kill you, just not with hemlock?
 

Suppose a patient refuses care not because s/he really knows the consequence, but because s/he is misinformed?
 

Irina: a refusal based on poor information is invalid.
 

Litigation concerning informed consent often occurs after damage has already been done. I am by no means a "plaintiff's attorney", but I can say that litigation which occurs over informed consent is little consolation to patients that have truly been injured. Furthermore, informed consent is often a matter of "legal fiction" when it concerns teenagers and/or mentally disabled persons.
 

So is there anyway to get proper information before an injury occurs?
 

I don't really have a good answer, but I would research my doctor, ask for references if I were considering a procedure, research any major diagnosis on line, and get a second opinion. Plus, I'd trust my gut. Sorry I don't have a better idea.