In a recent critique of informed consent, Robert Veatch argues that the pra
ctice is in principle unable to attain the goals for which it was developed
. We argue that Veatch's focus on the theoretical impossibility of determin
ing patients' best interests is misapplied to the practical discipline of m
edicine, and that he wrongly assumes that the patient-physician communicati
on fails to provide the knowledge needed to insure the patient's best inter
ests. We further argue that Veatch's suggested alternative, value-based pat
ient-professional pairing, is, on his own terms, impossible to implement. F
inally, we reexamine the philosophical and practical justifications for inf
ormed consent and conclude that the practice should be retained.