{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012413793103448275, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.308695652173913, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Schreiber v. Physicians Insurance Company.


 The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that once a patient withdraws consent for a procedure or when medical circumstances change, a physician is obligated to conduct another informed consent discussion. Janice Schreiber consented to a vaginal delivery but later requested a cesarean delivery on three separate occasions. The court held that these separate requests constituted a withdrawal of consent and at the time of the withdrawal there existed medically viable options for treatment which required a new informed consent discussion. The court explicitly rejected the notion that once a procedure has been initiated the time for a decision and discussions relating to that decision have passed. During the delay that ensued as a result of the physician's failure to deliver by cesarean section, Janice's uterus ruptured depriving the child of oxygen that caused her to be born with spastic quadriplegia. The court applied a subjective test when determining causation instead of the traditional objective (reasonable person) test. The court explicitly held that its ruling did not create a patient right to demand any treatment desired, a requirement that physicians perform procedures they do not consider medically viable, a requirement that physicians perform procedures for which they lack appropriate training, or a requirement that physicians perform procedures to which they are morally opposed.
