Informed Consent and Consent to Treatment

Pain Review ◽  
2009 ◽  
pp. 671
Author(s):  
Steven D. Waldman
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Mandarelli ◽  
Giovanna Parmigiani ◽  
Felice Carabellese ◽  
Silvia Codella ◽  
Paolo Roma ◽  
...  

Despite growing attention to the ability of patients to provide informed consent to treatment in different medical settings, few studies have dealt with the issue of informed consent to major orthopaedic surgery in those over the age of 60. This population is at risk of impaired decision-making capacity (DMC) because older age is often associated with a decline in cognitive function, and they often present with anxiety and depressive symptoms, which could also affect their capacity to consent to treatment. Consent to major orthopaedic surgery requires the patient to understand, retain and reason about complex procedures. This study was undertaken to extend the literature on decisional capacity to consent to surgery and anaesthesia of patients over the age of 60 undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. Recruited patients ( N=83) were evaluated using the Aid to Capacity Evaluation, the Beck Depression Inventory, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory Y, the Mini-Mental State Examination and a visual analogue scale for measuring pain symptomatology. Impairment of medical DMC was common in the overall sample, with about 50% of the recruited patients showing a doubtful ability, or overt inability, to provide informed consent. Poor cognitive functioning was associated with reduced medical DMC, although no association was found between decisional capacity and depressive, anxiety and pain symptoms. These findings underline the need of an in-depth assessment of capacity in older patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.


2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 348-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Teitelbaum ◽  
Lara Cartwright-Smith ◽  
Sara Rosenbaum

More than twenty-four million people in the United States are considered limited English proficient (LEP), and numerous studies have documented the consequences of communication barriers in healthcare. These consequences include: patients’ inability to become engaged and involved in their care; the absence of crucial information—including cultural information—essential to healthcare quality; risks to patient safety arising from the misunderstanding of physician instructions; and ethical and legal lapses stemming from the absence of informed consent. Addressing healthcare rights necessarily entails coming to grips with how to facilitate communication and the exchange of information between the healthcare system and an increasingly diverse patient population.The history of language access services in healthcare is grounded in two distinct bodies of law: the law of informed consent and civil rights law. Modern notions of informed consent law—which have their roots in the Nuremberg trials of the late 1940s—would recognize a cause of action in tort where a lack of adequate communication creates a barrier to an LEP patient's ability to consent to care. In modern healthcare law, the ability of patients to affirmatively give informed consent to treatment is considered a fundamental element of healthcare quality.


Author(s):  
Jessica W. Berg ◽  
Paul S. Appelbaum ◽  
Charles W. Lidz ◽  
Lisa S. Parker

To a great extent the underlying purposes of informed consent in research settings resemble those in the treatment situation. Informed consent promotes individuals’ autonomy by allowing subjects to make meaningful decisions about participation in research projects. Informed consent is also a means of reducing inequalities of knowledge and power in the researcher-subject relationship and thus increases the cooperation and compliance of subjects. Increased knowledge also enhances patients’ abilities to make decisions that will protect them from unwanted and undesirable intrusions on bodily integrity, perhaps of even greater importance here than in treatment settings, because of the sorry history of abuses inflicted on research subjects. As great as the similarities are between consent to treatment and consent to research, the differences are equally great. In treatment settings, as already noted, clinicians and patients are presumed to share the same goal: promoting patients’ health. They may disagree over the means, but a general coincidence of interests is ordinarily the rule. Charles Fried calls this confluence of interests the principle of personal care. “The traditional concept of the physician’s relation to his patient is one of unqualified fidelity to that patient’s health. He may certainly not do anything that would impair the patient’s health and he must do everything in his ability to further it”. The essence of this principle is that physicians will not allow any other considerations to impinge on their decisions as to what measures are in their patients’ best interests. Since the goal of scientific investigation is the production of generalizable knowledge, not primarily the promotion of individual health, the interests of subjects and researchers are not identical. Clinician-researchers who are providing treatment to subjects in their research studies may feel this clash of interests most acutely as steps taken to protect the generalizability of the data may conflict with the maximization of benefit to individual subjects (2). The need to take this conflict into account in the decisionmaking process is largely responsible for the differences between consent to research and consent to treatment.


2004 ◽  
Vol os11 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy A Woodcock ◽  
Mark V Willings ◽  
Patrick VA Marren

The concept of consent to treatment is increasingly becoming contested in United Kingdom courts of law. Any practitioners who cannot demonstrate that a patient has properly consented to treatment are laying themselves open to litigation. This paper demonstrates that valid consent is not as straightforward as may be assumed and that a patient can easily challenge a standardised approach to obtaining consent. Current Department of Health guidelines on obtaining consent are discussed, and changes in the USA, Europe and Australia are brought into focus with regard to the situation in the UK.


1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscilla Alderson

Is it ever possible to give informed consent to treatment or research? Are the standards of consent set by ethicists and lawyers too high for ordinary people to reach? Should these standards be abandoned or modified? These questions are discussed in this paper mainly in relation to the extensive literature on consent in medicine, with exa mples about consent to children's treatment and research which raise extra dilemmas. Paradoxical meanings are considered: consent as an informed correct choice or a courageous best guess, and autonomy as isolated, uncompromised freedom or reasonably uncoerced self-realisation. Beyond being informed, consent involves evaluating, making and signifying a decision. It is better understood as a process than an event, in which reasoned understandings can be complemented by emotional insights. Ethical and legal standards of voluntary consent, although partly an unrealistic ideal, provide important guidelines for people who request and give consent to research.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Bickenbach

Argumentation theory has much to offer our understanding of the doctor-patient relationship as it plays out in the context of seeking and obtaining consent to treatment. In order to harness the power of argumentation theory in this regard, I argue, it is necessary to take into account insights from the legal and bioethical dimensions of informed consent, and in particular to account for features of the interaction that make it psychologically complex: that there is a fundamental asymmetry of authority, power and expertise between doctor and patient; that, given the potential for coercion, it is a challenge to preserve the interactive balance presumed by the requirement of informed consent; and finally that the necessary condition that patients be ‘competent to consent’ may undermine the requirement of respecting patient autonomy. I argue argumentation theory has the resources to deal with these challenges and expand our knowledge, and appreciation, of the informed consent interaction in health care.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2S) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Riccardo Fresa

Legal issues concerning the doctor-patient relationship are numerous, and belong to the wider field of professional liability in health care. This article will be dealt with the issues related to informed consent in patients temporarily unable to express consent, or patients who are in a state of temporary incapacity. If the patients are temporarily incapable, and therefore are not able to receive the information nor to express consent to treatment, the physicians’ duty to provide medical treatment and the patients’ self-determination should be considered: the patients can consent or refuse treatment only if able to understand the significance of their decision. If a patient is temporarily unable to give consent and the practitioner doesn’t have at his/her disposal a valid document reporting the patient’s wishes, it’s necessary to rely on the so called “amministratore di sostegno” (introduced in the Italian legal system by Law n. 6 of January 9th, 2004). But in the case of not deferrable treatment, as a lifesaving intervention, the rule is in dubio pro life meaning that a doctor is always legitimized by this situation of urgent need, regardless of the informed consent of the patient and/or third parties.


2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Chaplin ◽  
Clive Timehin

Objective: This paper evaluates the effects of an educational intervention about tardive dyskinesia on knowledge and clinical stability at long-term follow up. Method: Fifty-six patients receiving antipsychotic maintenance completed a questionnaire assessing their knowledge about tardive dyskinesia. After random allocation to either educational intervention or control group, their knowledge, clinical stability and rates of tardive dyskinesia were reassessed after four years. Results: Seventy per cent of patients completed the study. The patients in the educational group retained significantly more knowledge at follow up than at baseline but this knowledge was not significantly greater than that of the control group. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes between the groups. Conclusion: Patients can retain a small but significant amount of information with a low risk of noncompliance. Discussion about tardive dyskinesia is necessary in the process of obtaining informed consent to treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document