huge percentages of people who give their informed consent to treatment do not really understand what they have chosen

Informed consent is one of the foundations of bioethical discourse. Bureaucrats have forced doctors and researchers to fill out endless forms in the belief that informed consent will enhance patients’ autonomy.
However, questions are being asked about whether this business of informed consent is really working. In an early online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Neil Levy, the Australian editor of another journal, Neuroethics, argues that bioethicists need to rethink informed consent.
Why? Because the lesson of all of modern psychology and of post-modern philosophy is that our rationality is terribly flawed. We are blind to the future consequences of our actions; we are not objective in assessing claims that touch us personally; we overestimate the effects of setbacks on our well-being; we are unreliable in estimating how bad or how good events made us feel. In short, human reasoning is subject to many fallibilities. it seems utterly naïve to think that Yes always means Yes and No always means No. So Levy declares that doctors need to return to paternalism, to some extent:

“patient autonomy is best promoted by constraining the informed consent procedure. By limiting the degree of freedom patients have to choose, the good that informed consent is supposed to protect can be promoted…

Somewhat surprisingly, Arthur Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania, probably the best-known bioethicist in the US, agrees with Levy. In a companion article, he says:

“autonomy is fundamentally inadequate in healthcare settings and requires supplementation by experience-based paternalism on the part of doctors and healthcare providers…

“A large number of studies have shown that huge percentages of people who give their informed consent to treatment or to their involvement in research do not really understand what they have chosen. Autonomy lives with hope and hope, in the form of the therapeutic misconception, often trumps autonomy.”

Questioning informed consent shakes a pillar of modern bioethics and the call for more benevolent paternalism is sure to face stiff opposition.
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/9979#comments

The courts have become the sole policing body for the medical profession

Major lawsuits, with the major judgments that go with them, may not completely keep negligent physicians from practicing, but they are the one way that currently exists to deter these individuals from practicing their inept brand of medicine. "

Over the years, we have given a lot of thought to why the medical profession adheres to this code of silence. What is it about this profession that causes it to protect its own at the expense of the public?"

Harvey F. Wachsman: Lethal Medicine

Publisher: Henry Holt & Co

why doctors did not react as individuals to such an incomprehensible assertion

“I cannot help but wonder how such a situation came to develop… If I had been told by a physician, no matter how senior, that infants don’t feel pain, I would never have believed it. What constitutes the difference between my reaction and that of the thousands of physicians who did believe it?” Jill Lawson, 1988

In a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine she questioned why doctors did not react as individuals to such an incomprehensible assertion.

The reasons why doctors traditionally take so long to question dogma are complex but we are known to be a rather conservative group of people. As late as 1974, experiments were still being conducted to ascertain whether infants felt pain.

http://www.mjainsight.com..._id=8674&cat=comment

our ignorance of the mechanisms for primary hyperhidrosis and of the effect of sympathetic ablation

Cell body reorganization in the spinal cord after elective surgery to treat sweaty palms

The amount of compensatory sweating depends on the patient, the damage that the white rami communicans incurs, and the amount of cell body reorganization in the spinal cord after surgery.
Other potential complications include inadequate resection of the ganglia, gustatory sweating, pneumothorax, cardiac dysfunction, post-operative pain, and finally Horner’s syndrome secondary to resection of the stellate ganglion.
www.ubcmj.com/pdf/ubcmj_2_1_2010_24-29.pdf

After severing the cervical sympathetic trunk, the cells of the cervical sympathetic ganglion undergo transneuronic degeneration
After severing the sympathetic trunk, the cells of its origin undergo complete disintegration within a year.
http://www.date.hu/acta-agraria/2002-08i/welento.pdf

cross-inhibitory control of various afferent in the spinal cord

In conclusion, our results suggest that cross-inhibitory control by various afferents in the spinal cord may exist in the feet as well as in the contralateral hand. The release of cross-inhibitory control by T3 sympathicotomy results in vasoconstriction and a decrease of skin temperature on the contralateral hand and the feet.

The basic neuronal network for this reciprocal organization is probably located in the spinal level (15). Therefore, the reduction in the contralateral skin temperature may be explained by cross-inhibitory control of various afferent in the spinal cord.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722005/

Contralateral temperature changes of the finger surface during video endoscopic sympathectomy for palmar hyperhidrosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8832515