Go back to the first legal principle drawn from the Canterbury decision: namely, that physicians have a duty of reasonable disclosure to include therapy options and the dangers potentially involved with each. Do you agree with the court that this duty is both a logical and modest extension of physicians’ “traditional”

obligation to their patients? Why or why not? Depending on your answer, are you surprised to learn that some states have opted not to follow the Canterbury court’s patient-oriented standard of informed consent, relying instead on the more conventional approach of measuring the legality of physician disclosure based on what a reasonable physician would have disclosed?