FOR BRIANNE. FOR EVERY PATIENT.
The Issue
A Call for Medical Transparency, Meaningful Informed Consent & Patient Safety
My sister, Officer Brianne Carlson, served the City of Detroit for nine years with courage, integrity, and a commitment to protecting others.
When Brianne was diagnosed with metastatic cervical cancer, she fought with that same determination.
As walking became more difficult, she continued showing up for appointments. If she had to move, she did—even when that meant crawling.
Brianne trusted her healthcare team. She trusted that she was being given the information she needed to understand her condition, her treatment, and the choices in front of her.
After Brianne died, I downloaded and reviewed her medical records.
What I found left our family asking a question no patient or family should have to ask:
Why weren’t we told?
WHAT WE FOUND AFTER BRIANNE DIED
During Brianne’s September hospitalization, clinician notes documented serious concerns about her condition, prognosis, and ability to tolerate further aggressive treatment.
One note stated that Brianne was “unlikely to tolerate” the proposed aggressive treatment in its entirety.
That same note stated that “other options would consider hospice” and that “each day that passes will make hospice more likely.”
Our family did not discover those words until after Brianne died, when I downloaded and reviewed her hospitalization record.
Brianne never saw that note.
Our family was not aware of it.
Those documented concerns—including the references to hospice—were never communicated to Brianne or to our family before she proceeded with further treatment.
That distinction has become one of the most important reasons for this petition:
Information being documented is not the same thing as information being communicated.
If information could change a patient’s decision, the patient deserves a meaningful opportunity to know it.
QUESTIONS ABOUT INFORMED CONSENT
Brianne’s records also documented neurological and cognitive concerns during this period, including altered mental status and decreased level of consciousness.
Our family witnessed episodes of confusion and hallucinations.
This raises an important patient-safety question that extends far beyond Brianne:
What safeguards should exist when a patient is being asked to make a high-stakes medical decision while there are documented concerns about their mental status or ability to fully participate in that decision?
Meaningful informed consent should be more than obtaining a signature.
Patients should have understandable information about significant risks, expected benefits, reasonable alternatives, prognosis when relevant, and serious concerns that could affect their decision.
When there is reason to question a patient’s ability to make or understand a high-stakes medical decision, appropriate safeguards should exist.
QUESTIONS ABOUT INFECTION AND TREATMENT
Brianne was also experiencing respiratory symptoms around the time further chemotherapy was being considered.
Her records documented symptoms including cough, congestion, sore throat, and shortness of breath.
A chest X-ray was ordered and subsequently canceled. Her records raise questions for our family about how possible infection was evaluated before treatment proceeded.
Brianne later deteriorated rapidly.
Subsequent testing identified pneumonia and a serious bloodstream infection.
For our family, this raised additional patient-safety questions:
What safeguards should exist before immunosuppressive treatment is administered when a patient has signs or symptoms that could indicate an active infection?
What information about those risks should a patient receive before deciding whether to proceed?
These questions deserve serious examination—not only because of Brianne, but because other patients may someday face similar circumstances.
WHEN HOSPICE ENTERED THE CONVERSATION
What our family later discovered in Brianne’s medical records was devastating.
An earlier clinician note stated that “other options would consider hospice” and that “each day that passes will make hospice more likely.”
But hospice was never discussed with Brianne. It was never discussed with our family.
This is especially painful because hospice was one of Brianne’s greatest fears. She deserved the opportunity to know that it was being considered, to ask questions, to understand why, and to participate in decisions about what she wanted for her own care.
Our family did not learn that hospice had already been documented as a consideration until after Brianne died and I reviewed her medical records.
Hospice was finally introduced to our family only when Brianne was critically ill and dependent on breathing support.
Hospice paperwork was completed.
Brianne died shortly afterward.
We will never know what Brianne might have chosen if she had been told earlier about the concerns documented in her medical record, including concerns about her prognosis, her ability to tolerate further aggressive treatment, and hospice being considered as another option.
We cannot answer that question for her.
That is exactly the point.
Brianne should have had the opportunity to hear that information herself, ask questions, understand her options, and make her own informed choices.
BRIANNE WAS STILL PLANNING FOR A FUTURE
This wasn’t an abstract medical decision to Brianne.
She was still thinking about tomorrow.
After Brianne repeatedly encouraged our father to finally do something for himself, he bought a car.
They were supposed to drive it together after she finished treatment.
Brianne never got to see the car.
Instead, it was parked outside her service.
That is one of the reasons this issue matters so deeply to our family.
Medical information doesn’t exist only in a chart.
It can affect what patients believe about tomorrow, what treatments they choose, what conversations they have with the people they love, how they spend their time, and what decisions they make about their own lives.
THIS IS WHERE BRIANNE’S STORY BECOMES EVERY PATIENT’S STORY
I cannot change what happened to my sister.
I cannot know what Brianne would have chosen if she had been given different information or had different conversations about her condition and options.
But I can ask what we should learn from her experience.
Because this is not only about cancer.
It is not only about chemotherapy.
It is not about one doctor, one hospital, one healthcare system, one diagnosis, or one medical specialty.
IT IS ABOUT EVERY PATIENT.
The patient considering surgery.
The patient starting a new medication.
The patient facing a serious diagnosis.
The patient deciding whether to continue aggressive treatment.
The patient weighing the risks and benefits of a procedure.
The patient whose condition is deteriorating.
The patient whose medical record contains information they have never heard.
The patient considering palliative care or hospice.
The family trying to make decisions for someone who can no longer speak for themselves.
Whether the patient is facing cancer, heart disease, surgery, infection, chronic illness, pregnancy, mental-health treatment, emergency care, or any other medical condition, the principle is the same: patients deserve the information they need to make informed decisions about their own care.
Brianne is why this began. Every patient is why it matters.
WHAT WE WANT TO CHANGE
We are calling for stronger patient protections centered on transparency, communication, meaningful informed consent, and accountability.
We believe patients deserve:
1. SIGNIFICANT CLINICAL CONCERNS TO BE COMMUNICATED
When healthcare professionals have significant information that could materially affect a patient’s decision about their care, that information should be meaningfully communicated to the patient before a decision is made, except when circumstances make such communication impossible.
2. INFORMED CONSENT THAT MEANS MORE THAN A SIGNATURE
Patients should receive understandable information about significant risks, expected benefits, reasonable alternatives, and the consequences of declining or delaying care when applicable.
3. SAFEGUARDS WHEN DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY IS IN QUESTION
When significant confusion, altered mental status, or other substantial concerns about a patient’s ability to understand a decision are present, appropriate assessment and safeguards should occur before consent is obtained for high-risk, non-emergency treatment.
4. SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT A PATIENT’S ABILITY TO TOLERATE TREATMENT TO BE DISCUSSED
If a healthcare professional has serious concerns about whether a patient can tolerate a proposed medication, treatment, procedure, surgery, or other intervention, the patient should be part of that conversation whenever reasonably possible.
5. PROGNOSIS TO BE COMMUNICATED HONESTLY AND COMPASSIONATELY WHEN RELEVANT
Patients deserve information necessary to understand the seriousness of their condition and make decisions consistent with their own values and wishes.
6. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES AND SUPPORTIVE-CARE OPTIONS TO BE DISCUSSED
Patients should be told about reasonable alternatives relevant to their decision.
When palliative care or hospice becomes clinically relevant, patients and families should have a meaningful opportunity to understand those options before a crisis whenever reasonably possible.
7. PATIENT-SAFETY CONCERNS TO BE APPROPRIATELY EVALUATED BEFORE HIGH-RISK TREATMENT
When significant symptoms or medical concerns could affect the safety of a proposed treatment, patients deserve appropriate evaluation and understandable information about how those concerns could affect the risks of proceeding.
8. STRONGER CONTINUITY OF CARE BETWEEN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES
Important clinical concerns, significant recent findings, pending issues, and other information necessary for safe continuity of care should follow patients when their care moves between hospitals, facilities, and healthcare systems.
9. TIMELY ACCESS TO IMPORTANT MEDICAL INFORMATION
Patients should have timely access to significant consultation notes, test results, treatment recommendations, and other information concerning their care, consistent with applicable laws and appropriate clinical processes.
10. IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS TO BE DOCUMENTED
Healthcare institutions should distinguish, when appropriate, between information being documented in a medical record and significant information actually being communicated to the patient or authorized decision-maker.
11. SERIOUS CHANGES IN A PATIENT’S CONDITION TO RECEIVE APPROPRIATE ATTENTION
Significant deterioration—including acute confusion, hallucinations, changes in consciousness, breathing difficulties, or other serious changes—should receive appropriate evaluation and escalation.
12. PATIENTS AND FAMILIES TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL AVENUE FOR REVIEW
When patients or families believe critical information was not disclosed, informed consent was inadequate, or serious patient-safety concerns were not appropriately addressed, they should have access to a transparent process for review and accountability.
WHAT WE ARE REALLY ASKING FOR
We are not asking patients to become doctors.
We are not asking families to interpret every test result or understand every page of a medical record.
And we are not asking healthcare professionals to predict the future with certainty.
We are asking for something much more fundamental:
Tell patients what they reasonably need to know to participate meaningfully in decisions about their own bodies and lives.
A medical record should support communication with a patient—not become the place where a patient or family first discovers information that could have mattered to a life-changing decision.
A signature should not substitute for a conversation.
A patient should never have to discover afterward that significant concerns were documented but were not meaningfully communicated to them.
BRIANNE’S LEGACY
Brianne spent nine years serving and protecting her community as a police officer.
She spent her career standing up for other people.
My hope is that by telling her story, she can continue protecting others in a different way.
She spent her life protecting others. Now let her legacy help protect patients.
PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE
Please sign this petition if you believe patients deserve medical transparency, meaningful informed consent, honest communication, and a meaningful voice in decisions about their own healthcare.
Share Brianne’s story.
Talk about patient rights.
Ask questions.
Read your medical records.
Advocate for the people you love.
And help us make one principle impossible to ignore:
IF INFORMATION COULD CHANGE A PATIENT’S DECISION, THE PATIENT DESERVES TO KNOW.
THE PATIENT SHOULD NEVER BE THE LAST TO KNOW.
FOR BRIANNE. FOR THE NEXT PATIENT. FOR EVERY FAMILY.
1,018
The Issue
A Call for Medical Transparency, Meaningful Informed Consent & Patient Safety
My sister, Officer Brianne Carlson, served the City of Detroit for nine years with courage, integrity, and a commitment to protecting others.
When Brianne was diagnosed with metastatic cervical cancer, she fought with that same determination.
As walking became more difficult, she continued showing up for appointments. If she had to move, she did—even when that meant crawling.
Brianne trusted her healthcare team. She trusted that she was being given the information she needed to understand her condition, her treatment, and the choices in front of her.
After Brianne died, I downloaded and reviewed her medical records.
What I found left our family asking a question no patient or family should have to ask:
Why weren’t we told?
WHAT WE FOUND AFTER BRIANNE DIED
During Brianne’s September hospitalization, clinician notes documented serious concerns about her condition, prognosis, and ability to tolerate further aggressive treatment.
One note stated that Brianne was “unlikely to tolerate” the proposed aggressive treatment in its entirety.
That same note stated that “other options would consider hospice” and that “each day that passes will make hospice more likely.”
Our family did not discover those words until after Brianne died, when I downloaded and reviewed her hospitalization record.
Brianne never saw that note.
Our family was not aware of it.
Those documented concerns—including the references to hospice—were never communicated to Brianne or to our family before she proceeded with further treatment.
That distinction has become one of the most important reasons for this petition:
Information being documented is not the same thing as information being communicated.
If information could change a patient’s decision, the patient deserves a meaningful opportunity to know it.
QUESTIONS ABOUT INFORMED CONSENT
Brianne’s records also documented neurological and cognitive concerns during this period, including altered mental status and decreased level of consciousness.
Our family witnessed episodes of confusion and hallucinations.
This raises an important patient-safety question that extends far beyond Brianne:
What safeguards should exist when a patient is being asked to make a high-stakes medical decision while there are documented concerns about their mental status or ability to fully participate in that decision?
Meaningful informed consent should be more than obtaining a signature.
Patients should have understandable information about significant risks, expected benefits, reasonable alternatives, prognosis when relevant, and serious concerns that could affect their decision.
When there is reason to question a patient’s ability to make or understand a high-stakes medical decision, appropriate safeguards should exist.
QUESTIONS ABOUT INFECTION AND TREATMENT
Brianne was also experiencing respiratory symptoms around the time further chemotherapy was being considered.
Her records documented symptoms including cough, congestion, sore throat, and shortness of breath.
A chest X-ray was ordered and subsequently canceled. Her records raise questions for our family about how possible infection was evaluated before treatment proceeded.
Brianne later deteriorated rapidly.
Subsequent testing identified pneumonia and a serious bloodstream infection.
For our family, this raised additional patient-safety questions:
What safeguards should exist before immunosuppressive treatment is administered when a patient has signs or symptoms that could indicate an active infection?
What information about those risks should a patient receive before deciding whether to proceed?
These questions deserve serious examination—not only because of Brianne, but because other patients may someday face similar circumstances.
WHEN HOSPICE ENTERED THE CONVERSATION
What our family later discovered in Brianne’s medical records was devastating.
An earlier clinician note stated that “other options would consider hospice” and that “each day that passes will make hospice more likely.”
But hospice was never discussed with Brianne. It was never discussed with our family.
This is especially painful because hospice was one of Brianne’s greatest fears. She deserved the opportunity to know that it was being considered, to ask questions, to understand why, and to participate in decisions about what she wanted for her own care.
Our family did not learn that hospice had already been documented as a consideration until after Brianne died and I reviewed her medical records.
Hospice was finally introduced to our family only when Brianne was critically ill and dependent on breathing support.
Hospice paperwork was completed.
Brianne died shortly afterward.
We will never know what Brianne might have chosen if she had been told earlier about the concerns documented in her medical record, including concerns about her prognosis, her ability to tolerate further aggressive treatment, and hospice being considered as another option.
We cannot answer that question for her.
That is exactly the point.
Brianne should have had the opportunity to hear that information herself, ask questions, understand her options, and make her own informed choices.
BRIANNE WAS STILL PLANNING FOR A FUTURE
This wasn’t an abstract medical decision to Brianne.
She was still thinking about tomorrow.
After Brianne repeatedly encouraged our father to finally do something for himself, he bought a car.
They were supposed to drive it together after she finished treatment.
Brianne never got to see the car.
Instead, it was parked outside her service.
That is one of the reasons this issue matters so deeply to our family.
Medical information doesn’t exist only in a chart.
It can affect what patients believe about tomorrow, what treatments they choose, what conversations they have with the people they love, how they spend their time, and what decisions they make about their own lives.
THIS IS WHERE BRIANNE’S STORY BECOMES EVERY PATIENT’S STORY
I cannot change what happened to my sister.
I cannot know what Brianne would have chosen if she had been given different information or had different conversations about her condition and options.
But I can ask what we should learn from her experience.
Because this is not only about cancer.
It is not only about chemotherapy.
It is not about one doctor, one hospital, one healthcare system, one diagnosis, or one medical specialty.
IT IS ABOUT EVERY PATIENT.
The patient considering surgery.
The patient starting a new medication.
The patient facing a serious diagnosis.
The patient deciding whether to continue aggressive treatment.
The patient weighing the risks and benefits of a procedure.
The patient whose condition is deteriorating.
The patient whose medical record contains information they have never heard.
The patient considering palliative care or hospice.
The family trying to make decisions for someone who can no longer speak for themselves.
Whether the patient is facing cancer, heart disease, surgery, infection, chronic illness, pregnancy, mental-health treatment, emergency care, or any other medical condition, the principle is the same: patients deserve the information they need to make informed decisions about their own care.
Brianne is why this began. Every patient is why it matters.
WHAT WE WANT TO CHANGE
We are calling for stronger patient protections centered on transparency, communication, meaningful informed consent, and accountability.
We believe patients deserve:
1. SIGNIFICANT CLINICAL CONCERNS TO BE COMMUNICATED
When healthcare professionals have significant information that could materially affect a patient’s decision about their care, that information should be meaningfully communicated to the patient before a decision is made, except when circumstances make such communication impossible.
2. INFORMED CONSENT THAT MEANS MORE THAN A SIGNATURE
Patients should receive understandable information about significant risks, expected benefits, reasonable alternatives, and the consequences of declining or delaying care when applicable.
3. SAFEGUARDS WHEN DECISION-MAKING CAPACITY IS IN QUESTION
When significant confusion, altered mental status, or other substantial concerns about a patient’s ability to understand a decision are present, appropriate assessment and safeguards should occur before consent is obtained for high-risk, non-emergency treatment.
4. SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT A PATIENT’S ABILITY TO TOLERATE TREATMENT TO BE DISCUSSED
If a healthcare professional has serious concerns about whether a patient can tolerate a proposed medication, treatment, procedure, surgery, or other intervention, the patient should be part of that conversation whenever reasonably possible.
5. PROGNOSIS TO BE COMMUNICATED HONESTLY AND COMPASSIONATELY WHEN RELEVANT
Patients deserve information necessary to understand the seriousness of their condition and make decisions consistent with their own values and wishes.
6. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES AND SUPPORTIVE-CARE OPTIONS TO BE DISCUSSED
Patients should be told about reasonable alternatives relevant to their decision.
When palliative care or hospice becomes clinically relevant, patients and families should have a meaningful opportunity to understand those options before a crisis whenever reasonably possible.
7. PATIENT-SAFETY CONCERNS TO BE APPROPRIATELY EVALUATED BEFORE HIGH-RISK TREATMENT
When significant symptoms or medical concerns could affect the safety of a proposed treatment, patients deserve appropriate evaluation and understandable information about how those concerns could affect the risks of proceeding.
8. STRONGER CONTINUITY OF CARE BETWEEN HEALTHCARE FACILITIES
Important clinical concerns, significant recent findings, pending issues, and other information necessary for safe continuity of care should follow patients when their care moves between hospitals, facilities, and healthcare systems.
9. TIMELY ACCESS TO IMPORTANT MEDICAL INFORMATION
Patients should have timely access to significant consultation notes, test results, treatment recommendations, and other information concerning their care, consistent with applicable laws and appropriate clinical processes.
10. IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS TO BE DOCUMENTED
Healthcare institutions should distinguish, when appropriate, between information being documented in a medical record and significant information actually being communicated to the patient or authorized decision-maker.
11. SERIOUS CHANGES IN A PATIENT’S CONDITION TO RECEIVE APPROPRIATE ATTENTION
Significant deterioration—including acute confusion, hallucinations, changes in consciousness, breathing difficulties, or other serious changes—should receive appropriate evaluation and escalation.
12. PATIENTS AND FAMILIES TO HAVE A MEANINGFUL AVENUE FOR REVIEW
When patients or families believe critical information was not disclosed, informed consent was inadequate, or serious patient-safety concerns were not appropriately addressed, they should have access to a transparent process for review and accountability.
WHAT WE ARE REALLY ASKING FOR
We are not asking patients to become doctors.
We are not asking families to interpret every test result or understand every page of a medical record.
And we are not asking healthcare professionals to predict the future with certainty.
We are asking for something much more fundamental:
Tell patients what they reasonably need to know to participate meaningfully in decisions about their own bodies and lives.
A medical record should support communication with a patient—not become the place where a patient or family first discovers information that could have mattered to a life-changing decision.
A signature should not substitute for a conversation.
A patient should never have to discover afterward that significant concerns were documented but were not meaningfully communicated to them.
BRIANNE’S LEGACY
Brianne spent nine years serving and protecting her community as a police officer.
She spent her career standing up for other people.
My hope is that by telling her story, she can continue protecting others in a different way.
She spent her life protecting others. Now let her legacy help protect patients.
PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE
Please sign this petition if you believe patients deserve medical transparency, meaningful informed consent, honest communication, and a meaningful voice in decisions about their own healthcare.
Share Brianne’s story.
Talk about patient rights.
Ask questions.
Read your medical records.
Advocate for the people you love.
And help us make one principle impossible to ignore:
IF INFORMATION COULD CHANGE A PATIENT’S DECISION, THE PATIENT DESERVES TO KNOW.
THE PATIENT SHOULD NEVER BE THE LAST TO KNOW.
FOR BRIANNE. FOR THE NEXT PATIENT. FOR EVERY FAMILY.
The Decision Makers
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on December 13, 2025