This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jeremy Sugarman, MD
Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health Baltimore, Md

Madison Powers, JD, DPhil
Georgetown University Washington, DC

JAMA. 1992;268(1):51.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—Drs Archer and Wood argue that our characterization of Rust v Sullivan¹ as "a significant departure from established precedent" is incorrect. Each notes that aspects of the communication between physician and patient have long been regulated. And in this regard, they are correct. Both, however, fail to appreciate the point of our claim. The Supreme Court's decision in Rust is a significant departure from established precedent in three important respects.

First, most legislative and judicial efforts to regulate physician-patient communication have been designed to expand the duty to provide full and complete information to patients so that they might make knowledgeable and informed health care decisions. In Rust, however, the regulation at issue departs from this rationale since it restricts, rather than expands, what health care workers tell their patients.

Second, even when the stated rationale behind legislative attempts to control physician-patient communication has been to promote . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?