Chiles v. Salazar · ¶142
A second and corollary First Amendment principle is the listener's interest in receiving information. See Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U. S. 43, 75 (2024); accord, Kleindienst v. Man del, 408 U. S. 753, 762 (1972). In the professional medical context, however, informational asymmetry shapes the listener's interest. To be sure, “[r]espect for patients' autonomy is a cornerstone of medical ethics.” American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics, Opinion 11.2.4: Transparency in Health Care (2026). But that interest is not served by receiving all existing opinions—only information about treatments that are within the standard of care advances patients' interests. Ibid. (“[P]hysicians have an obligation to inform patients about all appropriate treatment options” (emphasis added)). Patients are not in a position to wade through medical discourse and independently evaluate the best treatment…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.