In the bigger picture, "Informed Consent" is a complete legal fiction. Anyone admitted to a hospital or clinic typically signs a blanket-consent form that says "I agree to be treated here [in whatever manner is laid down by your policies and regulations]."
Physicians have a song-and-dance about explaining the condition or diagnosis, and then proposing a treatment, in terms of a drug, procedure, course of action, equipment, or whatever, but in my limited experience, the staff makes every effort to keep those conversations off paper, out of the record, not in the charts, and solely verbal; they always couch it in layperson's simple terms and not precise medical jargon; and while they're contractually obligated to rattle off a million risks and adverse outcomes, they really can't explain all the details of the proposed treatment, because the patients/family wouldn't understand the concepts, science, research, or outcomes anyway.
Providers are far too overworked to document anything that doesn't earn them money, particular if that thing is an untreatable condition or a fact that may remove the patient from the workforce. 3/3 times I asked a physician for a respite from work, they told me to fuck off, but my supervisor said I'd ironically need to ride the bus and wait in a waiting room to procure a doctor's note to document my infectious cold, or I'd need to ride another bus and commute to the office while also sneezing on everyone, instead of pragmatically staying home for a day or two and resting until the viral load drops on its own?
HIPAA is designed not to protect patients: HIPAA is designed to protect "vendor lock-in", it limits liability from malpractice suits, it keeps Western Medicine as an opaque black box where actual on-the-ground treatents and outcomes can never be known at all. HIPAA is copyright and patent law on steroids, literally. HIPAA forces patients and customers to run a gauntlet of forms and filings and expiration dates in order to keep third parties informed about their treatment. Providers often refuse to accept or act upon ROI authorizations unless there is a demonstrated need to know/disclose. It's impossible to test whether a third party can obtain the authorized PHI until they actually try. It's been impossible for me to go to the backend and request a list or manifest of all open, current ROIs. They all just disappear into black holes.
Consider the white-hot fury rage when I reveal that I often record the audio of clinical encounters---because I need to review them to UNDERSTAND what was actually SAID and perhaps transcribe it, because my Eustachian Tubes completely disconnect from my Intellect and Reason when a doctor is flapping her officious expensive lips.
My experience, for example: I'm in the hospital, with my glasses off, and a stranger rocks up at the worst possible time, with badge flipped over backwards, can't tell you which Crack Jack box conveyed their Board Certification, but rattles off a lot of well-rehearsed words without regard for understanding or definitions from first principles, and then consent is assumed by a nod of the head, a blurted out "OK?" or any lack of a definitive refusal or questioning whether any other course of action is possible, or what the hell sort of condition/diagnosis are you really describing in those dumbed-down shitty layman's terms that are ambiguous, colloquial, or worse?
It's indistinguishable from tactics used by call-center scammers when they catch a vulnerable adult at 3am, or dinnertime, and obtain consent for financial transactions, by means of pressure tactics and fear or "keeping them in the ether" panic mode. Recall, of course, that American medicine operates with a "do it now, bill it later" paradigm where, unless the insurance carriers balk or require a preauth/pre-notify, the provider will hit you with every possible billable service/product throughout a hospital stay or clinic visit, and worry about the denied claims or patient responsibilities in 89 days from now.
Consent for treatment of an unconscious person without PoA on file, would be simply a matter of "what can we get away with that's laid down by our standards and practices?" and it's utterly routine that experimental treatments are "on the table".
Unfortunately, physicians are often wrong about a prognosis of death, even if it's just the time frame. "Bleeding to Death" is a subjective and colloquial diagnosis, isn't it? A physician can only work with probabilities, statistics, telemetry and professional experience to make educated guesses when the chances for survival are bleak.
Can you tell that I was just reading about the Karen Ann Quinlan case?