Respond at least one substantive response post and use references. "When I think about the law of informed consent, I do not believe it should be any different in psychiatry than it is in medicine generally. The foundation of informed consent is the protection of patient autonomy, and that principle should not shift simply because the context is psychiatric care. Patients deserve the same respect and protection of their rights regardless of the type of treatment they are receiving. I understand why some might argue that psychiatry presents unique challenges. Certain psychiatric conditions, such as psychosis or mania, can impair judgment and make it more difficult for patients to fully weigh risks and benefits. That reality can complicate how consent is obtained, but it does not mean the law itself should be less protective. Lowering the standard in psychiatry would create a double standard that could increase stigma and promote paternalism in mental health treatment. What is needed instead is a careful and thoughtful application of the same standard. In psychiatry, this might involve spending more time ensuring that the patient understands the information, assessing capacity in a structured way, and providing support that allows patients to participate meaningfully in decisions. These adjustments do not change the law but rather uphold it in a way that respects the specific challenges of psychiatric care. For these reasons, I believe the law of informed consent should remain