Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 39-4501 (2026)

Purposes — Application.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Purposes — Application.

(1) The primary purposes of this chapter are:

(a) To provide and codify Idaho law concerning consent for the furnishing of hospital, medical, dental, surgical, and other health care services and concerning what constitutes an informed consent for such health care services; and

(b) To provide certainty and clarity in the law of medical consent in the furtherance of high standards of health care services and their ready availability in proper cases.

(2) Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to amend or repeal the provisions of chapter 3 or chapter 4, title 66, Idaho Code, as those provisions pertain to hospitalization or commitment of people with mental illness or developmental disability or the powers of guardians of developmentally disabled persons, nor the provisions of chapter 6, title 18, Idaho Code, pertaining to the provision of examinations, prescriptions, devices, and informational materials regarding prevention of pregnancy or pertaining to therapeutic abortions and consent to the performance thereof.

(3) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit or require the provision of health care services for a patient in contravention of the patient’s stated or implied objection thereto upon religious grounds nor shall anything in this chapter be construed to require the granting of permission for or on behalf of any patient who is not able to act for himself by his parent, spouse, or guardian in violation of the religious beliefs of the patient or the patient’s parent or spouse.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: SUHADOLNIK v. Pressman, 254 P.3d 11 (Idaho 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

SUHADOLNIK v. Pressman, 254 P.3d 11 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “They also allege that the defendants failed to obtain Suhadolnik's informed consent as required by I.C. §§ 39-4501 through 39-4507. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that: 1) Dr.”

Peckham v. Idaho State Bd. of Dentistry, 303 P.3d 205 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “I.C. §§ 39-4501 to-4515. 8 . Although both parties briefed and argued the question of whether the Dentures Page is protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, we decline to reach that issue because this case can be resolved on other grounds.”

Almerico v. Denney, 378 F. Supp. 3d 920 (D. Idaho 2019). · cites it 2× “BACKGROUND Idaho's Medical Consent and Natural Death Act, Idaho Code §§ 39-4501 et seq. , "recognize[s] the right of a competent person to have his or her wishes for medical treatment and for the withdrawal of artificial life-sustaining procedures carried out even though that…”

In re Doe, 53 Misc. 3d 829 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2016). “…§§ 765.101 to 765.113; Georgia, Ga Code Ann §§ 31-9-1 to 31-9-7; Hawaii, Haw Rev Stat §§ 327E-1 to 327E-16; Idaho, Idaho Code Ann §§ 39-4501 to 39-4515; Illinois, 755 ILL Comp Stat 40/1 to 40/65; Indiana, Ind Code Ann §§ 16-36-1-1 to 16-36-1-14; Iowa, Iowa Code Ann §§ 144A.1…”

Schriver v. Raptosh, 557 P.3d 398 (Idaho 2024). · cites it 4× “3d 278, 282 (2005) (citing I.C. § 39-4501). The Schrivers cite a variety of authority from other jurisdictions to suggest that lack of informed consent is pertinent evidence of a breach of the duty of care in a veterinary malpractice or professional negligence case.”

Almerico v. Denney (D. Idaho 2021). · cites it 4× “LITIGATION BACKGROUND Plaintiffs are four women who challenge the constitutionality of a subsection of Idaho’s Medical Consent and Natural Death Act, Idaho Code §§ 39-4501 through -4515. The Act provides a template or form for an advance directive, which contains a person’s…”

Planned Parenthood Great Nw. v. State (Idaho 2023). · cites it 2× “, I.C. §§ 39-4501 to -4516 (“The Medical Consent and Natural Death Act”); I.”

— Idaho Code § 39-4501(1) — 1 case

Peckham v. Idaho State Bd. of Dentistry, 303 P.3d 205 (Idaho 2013). “I.C. §§ 39-4501 to-4515. 8 . Although both parties briefed and argued the question of whether the Dentures Page is protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, we decline to reach that issue because this case can be resolved on other grounds.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.