That is, the patient, either implicitly or explicitly, compares the particular goods associated with striving for health with the other goods for which the patient habitually strives. Suppose for example, a woman has been striving for years to save money to educate her grandchildren. As we posit that the ultimate responsibility for decision making rests with the patient, let us also emphasize that the role of the physician involves more than simply presenting options to the patient. The physician is dedicated to the good of the patient. Thus, the options presented to the patient should be presented in light of the patient's health and overall well-being.
Physicians are experts in regard to the biological and emotional functions.
But patients are experts in regard to their social and creative functions which are the integrating and value centered functions of human well-being. While physicians will have some general notions about the social and creative goods which integrate most persons' quests for well-being, they will not possess accurate knowledge about a particular person's values and goods insofar as social and creative needs are concerned. Thus, the patient has freedom to accept or reject the physician's recommendations in accord with his habitually determined goods and goals. Actually, this is a limited and misleading concept of informed consent. If we envision the informed consent process as a collaborative process with a twofold purpose, then the process is concerned with more than autonomy on the part of the patient.