Question: Which of these cases established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures: Canterbury v. Spence or Obergefell v. Hodges?

full_context: Document 1: Canterbury v. Spence: Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.
Document 2: LGBT rights in Vermont: The establishment of LGBT rights in the US state of Vermont is a recent occurrence, with the majority of progress having taken place in the past century. It was one of 37 US states, along with the District of Columbia, that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, until the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized equal marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.
Document 3: In re A.C.: In re A.C. was a 1987 D.C. Circuit reproductive rights case. It was the first appellate court case decided against forced Caesarean sections, although the decision was issued after the fatal procedure was performed. Physicians performed a Caesarean section upon patient Angela Carder (née Stoner) without informed consent in an unsuccessful attempt to save the life of her fetus. The case stands as a landmark in United States case law establishing the rights of informed consent and bodily integrity for pregnant women.
Document 4: Same-sex marriage by Circuit Court: Prior to the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor", the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage was upheld by the Eighth Circuit in "Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning". After the "Windsor" ruling, many same-sex marriage bans were struck down by lower courts. The Tenth, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits all ruled that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional. The cases that made it to these circuit courts originated in district courts which for the most part also struck down same-sex marriage bans. When a circuit court struck down a state's same-sex marriage ban, it did not directly strike down same-sex marriage bans in other states within the circuit. However, it paved the way for same-sex marriage bans to be struck down in the entire circuit due to the precedent it set for district courts within the circuit to follow. In some states, same-sex marriage was already legal before a federal circuit court ruled on the matter. The Sixth Circuit ruled that same-sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional and reversed the district court rulings that struck down same-sex marriage bans. Since this was the only circuit court to rule this way post-"Windsor", this created a circuit split which ultimately led to the Supreme Court of the United States deciding to resolve the issue once and for all. They ruled that same-sex marriage bans violate the constitution in the landmark ruling "Obergefell v. Hodges" which was the consolidated case that covered each state in the Sixth Circuit. Some circuit courts have not ruled on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans at all. Many circuit courts had pending same-sex marriage cases, but decided to hold off on litigation until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.
Document 5: Informed consent: Informed consent is a process for getting permission before conducting a healthcare intervention on a person. A health care provider may ask a patient to consent to receive therapy before providing it, or a clinical researcher may ask a research participant before enrolling that person into a clinical trial. Informed consent is collected according to guidelines from the fields of medical ethics and research ethics.
Document 6: Same-sex marriage in Missouri: Same-sex marriage in Missouri is legal under the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in "Obergefell v. Hodges", which struck down state bans on marriages between two people of the same sex on June 26, 2015. Prior to the court ruling, the state recognized same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions pursuant to a state court ruling in October 2014, and certain jurisdictions of the state performed same-sex marriage despite a statewide ban.
Document 7: Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion was challenged. The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of "Roe v. Wade" stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions. "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" differs from "Roe," however, because under "Roe" the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on women's fundamental right to an abortion. Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.
Document 8: Same-sex marriage in the Sixth Circuit: On April 28, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments for "Obergefell v. Hodges" (Ohio), which was consolidated with three other same-sex marriage cases from the other states in the Sixth Circuit: "Tanco v. Haslam" (Tennessee), "DeBoer v. Snyder" (Michigan), "Bourke v. Beshear" (Kentucky). On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision, paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal in those states, and setting a precedent for the entire nation. All four states complied with the ruling the same day it was issued before the mandate was actually issued. Every state in the circuit had a district court ruling against their states' ban, but they were eventually stayed pending appeal. The Sixth Circuit consists of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. On August 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for same-sex marriage cases from each state within the circuit. On November 6, 2014, the Sixth Circuit in a split 2-1 decision, upheld the states' same-sex marriage bans, reversing the district courts' rulings that struck them down. The Sixth Circuit was the first and only circuit court since the landmark ruling "United States v. Windsor" to uphold the constitutionality of states' same-sex marriage bans which caused a circuit split.
Document 9: Same-sex marriage in the United States: In the United States, same-sex marriage is legal in all states, Washington, D.C., as well as all U.S. territories except American Samoa, but not on all Native American tribal lands, since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Obergefell v. Hodges" that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a 1972 precedent, "Baker v. Nelson". Just prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015, same-sex marriage was legal in many but not all U.S. jurisdictions.
Document 10: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, "Cruzan" was argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.
Document 11: United States v. Windsor: United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307 ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."
Document 12: Chester v Afshar: Miss Chester was referred to Dr Afshar, a neurological expert, about some lower back pain. He told her that surgery was a solution, but (the judge found at first instance) did not inform her of the 1-2% risk of these operations going wrong. She suffered a complication, called cauda equina syndrome. The judge found that there was a causal connection between the failure to inform and Miss Chester's injuries - if she had been informed, she would have sought further advice or alternatives. In the Court of Appeal, Hale LJ, Sir Christopher Slade and Sir Denis Henry upheld the conclusion of the judge.
Document 13: Obergefell v. Hodges: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) ( ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a 5–4 decision.
Document 14: Bellotti v. Baird (1976): Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Massachusetts law requiring parental consent to a minor's abortion, which provided that "if one or both of the [minor]'s parents refuse ... consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge ... for good cause shown." The decision was unanimous, and the opinion of the Court was written by Justice Blackmun. The law in question "permits a minor capable of giving informed consent to obtain a court order allowing abortion without parental consultation, and further permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an abortion order without parental consultation where it is shown that abortion would be in her best interests."
Document 15: Madrigal v. Quilligan: Madrigal v. Quilligan was a federal class action lawsuit from Los Angeles County, California involving sterilization of Latina women that occurred either without informed consent, or through coercion. Although the judge ruled in favor of the doctors, the case led to better informed consent for patients, especially those who are not native English speakers.
ground_truth: Canterbury v. Spence