{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016740088105726872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.241758241758242, '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}}
From informed consent to patient choice: a new protected interest.

Judges and legal scholars have long asserted the importance of patient autonomy in medical decisionmaking. Yet autonomy has never been recognized as a legally protectable interest. It has been vindicated only as a byproduct of protection for two other interests-bodily security as protected by rules against unconsented contact, and bodily well-being as protected by rules governing professional competence. Neither bodily security nor bodily well-being, however, is an adequate surrogate; they do not coincide with autonomy. Nor is autonomy merely a formal issue. Decisionmaking by competent professionals does not provide an adequate substitute for patient choice. Injuries that arise from invasion of patients' interest in medical choice are both substantial and distinct. Part I of this Article explains the importance of patient autonomy and describes how existing doctrines protect that value. Part II examines gaps and flaws in that current scheme of protection. Part III analyzes clusters of cases in which greater vindication of patient autonomy has begun to