Yeah, I agree that informed consent is something that should be covered to a much higher degree than it is. And I think the argument that people shouldn't be informed about risks because we are suggestible or may back out is bogus. I mean, that's not an acceptable reason to not disclose the risks for other things, so why therapy? For example, when we take over the counter or prescription medication, we are given information on the possible side effects, contraindications, etc.

For me personally, if I look at the list of side effects and see weight gain, I don't want to take that medication. If my doctor/pharmacist/drug manufacturer just withheld that information and waited until a possible side effect "arose" for me personally and I was wondering why I had gained 100 lbs and developed type II diabetes, nobody would think that was ok.* Same with any sort of physical medical procedure. You wouldn't want a surgeon letting you know that you might require a second surgery only once the necessity "arose." So why would it be ok to just address things as they come up in therapy? If we accept the idea that people have a right to autonomy in making decisions about their own care, then you can't just address situations as they arise. That's just paternalistic.

* Yes, I realize that drugs are a dicey subject since usually not all of the side effects are known for many years, let alone prevalence rates. My point is that compared to the therapy industry, the pharmaceutical industry is downright transparent about known risks of undergoing any treatment.