Informed Consent and Adult Surrogates
Informed Consent
The Disclosure Framework
The Texas Medical Disclosure Panel's statutory two-list structure, disclosure duties, negligence theory, and separately enumerated minor-consent circumstances.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: TX; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: Texas medical-practice statutes, as of 2026-08-28. This classroom page provides legal information, not legal or medical advice. It does not assess a patient, clinician, license, report, prescription, disclosure, privilege, disciplinary ground, offense, or outcome. Current statutes, agency rules, facts, procedure, and professional standards may differ. Render only pinned structure; refuse unsupported interpretation or action; cite, abstain, and hand off to qualified legal, medical, regulatory, or emergency professionals.
The rule in plain terms
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter Seventy-Four directs the Medical Disclosure Panel to maintain two statutory categories: treatments and procedures requiring disclosure and those not requiring disclosure. The statute itself does not call them List A and List B; those names belong to published panel terminology. Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-Five states when written, signed, witnessed, risk-specific consent is considered effective under this chapter. Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-Six makes disclosure under the listed framework, and nondisclosure based on the no-disclosure list, evidence creating a rebuttable compliance presumption. Failure to disclose a risk required by the listed framework creates a rebuttable presumption of negligent failure; an emergency or other medical infeasibility can support a finding that nondisclosure was not negligent. If the panel has made no determination, duties otherwise imposed by law remain. None of those branches categorically establishes consent validity or eliminates every disclosure duty.
Failure-to-disclose theory
Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-One identifies negligence as the recovery theory for the specified failure-to-disclose health-care liability claim. Verbatim statutory text: “In a suit against a physician or health care provider involving a health care liability claim that is based on the failure of the physician or health care provider to disclose or adequately disclose the risks and hazards involved in the medical care or surgical procedure rendered by the physician or health care provider, the only theory on which recovery may be obtained is that of negligence in failing to disclose the risks or hazards that could have influenced a reasonable person in making a decision to give or withhold consent.” Legal citation: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.101. Pinned source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_74/section_74_101/tex_cp_74_101_b1a929647047/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_74_101_theory_of_recove_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Separate disclosure lists
Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-Three directs the panel to prepare separate lists of treatments and procedures that do and do not require disclosure. Verbatim statutory text: “(a) To the extent feasible, the panel shall identify and make a thorough examination of all medical treatments and surgical procedures in which physicians and health care providers may be involved in order to determine which of those treatments and procedures do and do not require disclosure of the risks and hazards to the patient or person authorized to consent for the patient. (b) The panel shall prepare separate lists of those medical treatments and surgical procedures that do and do not require disclosure and, for those treatments and procedures that do require disclosure, shall establish the degree of disclosure required and the form in which the disclosure will be made. Each provision of a disclosure form prepared under this subsection must be made available in English and Spanish. (c) Lists prepared under Subsection (b) together with written explanations of the degree and form of disclosure shall be published in the Texas Register. (d) At least annually, or at such other period the panel may determine from time to time, the panel will identify and examine any new medical treatments and surgical procedures that have been developed since its last determinations, shall assign them to the proper list, and shall establish the degree of disclosure required and the form in which the disclosure will be made. The panel will also examine such treatments and procedures for the purpose of revising lists previously published. These determinations shall be published in the Texas Register. (e) The panel is not authorized to take any action that changes the scope of practice authority of any physician or health care provider.” Legal citation: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.103. Pinned source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_74/section_74_103/tex_cp_74_103_3e36bfce20f5/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_74_103_duties_of_disclo_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Provider disclosure duty
Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-Four states the disclosure duty for care or procedures appearing on the list requiring disclosure. Verbatim statutory text: “Before a patient or a person authorized to consent for a patient gives consent to any medical care or surgical procedure that appears on the disclosure panel's list requiring disclosure, the physician or health care provider shall disclose to the patient or person authorized to consent for the patient the risks and hazards involved in that kind of care or procedure. A physician or health care provider shall be considered to have complied with the requirements of this section if disclosure is made as provided in Section 74.105.” Legal citation: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.104. Pinned source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_74/section_74_104/tex_cp_74_104_816d67d4fbaa/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_74_104_duty_of_physicia_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Manner of disclosure
Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-Five states when written, signed, witnessed, risk-specific consent is considered effective under this chapter. Verbatim statutory text: “Consent to medical care that appears on the disclosure panel's list requiring disclosure shall be considered effective under this chapter if it is given in writing, signed by the patient or a person authorized to give the consent and by a competent witness, and if the written consent specifically states the risks and hazards that are involved in the medical care or surgical procedure in the form and to the degree required by the disclosure panel under Section 74.103.” Legal citation: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.105. Pinned source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_74/section_74_105/tex_cp_74_105_e8af3f5c8055/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_74_105_manner_of_disclo_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Rebuttable effects and open category
Section Seventy-Four Point One-Zero-Six makes both list-based branches rebuttable and preserves otherwise-imposed duties when the panel has made no determination. Verbatim statutory text: “(a) In a suit against a physician or health care provider involving a health care liability claim that is based on the negligent failure of the physician or health care provider to disclose or adequately disclose the risks and hazards involved in the medical care or surgical procedure rendered by the physician or health care provider: (1) both disclosure made as provided in Section 74.104 and failure to disclose based on inclusion of any medical care or surgical procedure on the panel's list for which disclosure is not required shall be admissible in evidence and shall create a rebuttable presumption that the requirements of Sections 74.104 and 74.105 have been complied with and this presumption shall be included in the charge to the jury; and (2) failure to disclose the risks and hazards involved in any medical care or surgical procedure required to be disclosed under Sections 74.104 and 74.105 shall be admissible in evidence and shall create a rebuttable presumption of a negligent failure to conform to the duty of disclosure set forth in Sections 74.104 and 74.105, and this presumption shall be included in the charge to the jury; but failure to disclose may be found not to be negligent if there was an emergency or if for some other reason it was not medically feasible to make a disclosure of the kind that would otherwise have been negligence. (b) If medical care or surgical procedure is rendered with respect to which the disclosure panel has made no determination either way regarding a duty of disclosure, the physician or health care provider is under the duty otherwise imposed by law.” Legal citation: Tex. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.106. Pinned source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/civil_practice/chapter_74/section_74_106/tex_cp_74_106_bf7bca4e7c40/tex_civil_practice_remedies_code_sec_74_106_effect_of_disclo_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Consent by a child
Family Code Section Thirty-Two Point Zero-Zero-Three supplies several enumerated circumstances in which a child may consent to specified treatment. Verbatim statutory text: “(a) A child may consent to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical treatment for the child by a licensed physician or dentist if the child: (1) is on active duty with the armed services of the United States of America; (2) is: (A) 16 years of age or older and resides separate and apart from the child's parents, managing conservator, or guardian, with or without the consent of the parents, managing conservator, or guardian and regardless of the duration of the residence; and (B) managing the child's own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the income; (3) consents to the diagnosis and treatment of an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease that is required by law or a rule to be reported by the licensed physician or dentist to a local health officer or the Texas Department of Health, including all diseases within the scope of Section 81.041, Health and Safety Code; (4) is unmarried and pregnant and consents to hospital, medical, or surgical treatment, other than abortion, related to the pregnancy; (5) consents to examination and treatment for drug or chemical addiction, drug or chemical dependency, or any other condition directly related to drug or chemical use; (6) is unmarried, is the parent of a child, and has actual custody of his or her child and consents to medical, dental, psychological, or surgical treatment for the child; or (7) is serving a term of confinement in a facility operated by or under contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, unless the treatment would constitute a prohibited practice under Section 164.052(a)(19), Occupations Code. (b) Consent by a child to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical treatment under this section is not subject to disaffirmance because of minority. (c) Consent of the parents, managing conservator, or guardian of a child is not necessary in order to authorize hospital, medical, surgical, or dental care under this section. (d) A licensed physician, dentist, or psychologist may, with or without the consent of a child who is a patient, advise the parents, managing conservator, or guardian of the child of the treatment given to or needed by the child. (e) A physician, dentist, psychologist, hospital, or medical facility is not liable for the examination and treatment of a child under this section except for the provider's or the facility's own acts of negligence. (f) A physician, dentist, psychologist, hospital, or medical facility may rely on the written statement of the child containing the grounds on which the child has capacity to consent to the child's medical treatment.” Legal citation: Tex. Family Code § 32.003. Pinned source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/texas/family/chapter_32/section_32_003/tex_fa_32_003_aff637055f02/tex_family_code_sec_32_003_consent_to_treatment_by_child_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Work the pinned classroom record
A synthetic consent packet identifies a proposed procedure but does not guess its panel category. It retrieves current panel material and classifies the procedure as disclosure-required, no-disclosure-required, or not determined. The first two branches record only rebuttable evidentiary effects; the open category routes to duties otherwise imposed by law. A failure-to-disclose row preserves the required risk, rebuttable-negligence presumption, emergency or feasibility evidence, and contrary proof. A sixteen-year-old living separately and managing the child's own finances enters one statutory child-consent branch; other enumerated circumstances are checked separately. The model never supplies medical risk advice or decides capacity, authorization, consent validity, or negligence.
Limits and authored cross-references
The pinned statutes establish the two-list structure and rebuttable effects, not the current administrative list contents or informal List A/List B labels. Current panel publications and other law must be retrieved. A listed branch is not a conclusive safe harbor or automatic violation. The companion adult-surrogate page now covers the separately pinned no-directive pathway; its prerequisites and representative priority must not be generalized to every consent question. Authored conceptual cross-reference: Section Two connects the consent record to confidentiality; Section Seven addresses disciplinary grounds without converting a disclosure question into a violation finding.
Read the glanceable structure
The four-node hierarchy distinguishes the two panel determinations from the no-determination category and labels their effects as rebuttable or governed by other law; consent exchange details remain in prose. The diagram contains 4 deliberately limited nodes. It is a navigation aid, not law or advice; the words and pinned sources below control the classroom explanation.
Jurisdiction: TX; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Narrow summary
Retrieve the current panel determination, treat list effects and failure-to-disclose effects as rebuttable, preserve emergency and feasibility facts, and apply otherwise-imposed duties when the panel is silent.