Duty to Google - Does It Rebut All Claims to Lack of Informed Consent?

All people in the US have access to the internet. Does such access end all claims for lack of informed consent, for example, the induction of suicidal ideas by anti-depressants?

This appellate decision held that a lawyer should have Googled a party to find them. The judge did that from the bench. He found them, rebutted the claim, they could not be found.

See p. 2 below for an establishment review of the nascent case law on the duty to Google. This idea is not even new nor creative. It just awaits application by the defense bar.

http://www.ali-aba.org/doc/IFF0705.pdf

The patient has knowledge superior to any party, second by second facts of bodily sensations and functioning, reaction to a medication. That should become part of the contributory negligence defense, including the failure to communicate every gurgling and twinge in contemporaneous, time stamped emails.

Next, the ongoing process of informed consent is literally impossible if delivered by the doctor, even if an hour is spent reading the surgery text word for word together. The patient will forget it all 15 minutes after leaving. Only repetitious review helps people understand and remember.