There is significant controversy over whether patients have a ‘right not to know’ information relevant to their health. Some arguments for limiting such a right appeal to potential burdens on others that a patient’s avoidable ignorance might generate. This paper develops this argument by extending it to cases where refusal of relevant information may generate greater demands on a publicly funded healthcare system. In such cases, patients may have an ‘obligation to know’. However, we cannot infer from the fact that (...) a patient has an obligation to know that she does not also have a right not to know. The right not to know is held against medical professionals at a formal institutional level. We have reason to protect patients’ control over the information that they receive, even if in individual instances patients exercise this control in ways that violate obligations. (shrink)

This article is an initial attempt to compare the pre-abortion disclosure mandates that have proliferated in the two decades since the Court decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey with laws that, in the context of assisted reproduction and reproductive health, require specific disclosures beyond a state's baseline informed consent requirements. While some scholars have characterized pre-abortion disclosure laws as sui generis, they share some important common features with disclosure mandates in the context of oocyte donation and other reproductive health procedures. This (...) article suggests that in critiquing pre-abortion disclosure mandates, scholars and advocates should be careful to differentiate the use of disclosure laws in general from uses where the government interest conveys a moral preference against a particular procedure. (shrink)