Informed Consent

Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed

Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)

Every patient has a right to decide on their own course of treatment and freely consent to that treatment. In order to make an educated decision they must be provided with the proper information to make an informed choice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). It is the physician’s legal and ethical obligation to provide this information when making their recommendation on treatment. The choices given must be in accordance with good medical practice (Opinion 8.08 - Informed Consent, 2006). The informed consent is the legal policy, either written or verbal, that gives full disclosure of all the information including potential risks that is applicable to the patient’s condition and treatment being offered (Kazmier, 2008).

Obtaining an informed consent is a vital part of current health care. This document lists out several key pieces of information for both the patient, Provider, and the ancillary staff that also access the document during the procedure process. However, obtaining informed consent has not always been the practice norm and in research, informed consent carries different specifications.

When a patient needs to have a medical procedure performed, they must first consent to the procedure. Before accepting or rejecting the treatment, the practitioner is required to give the patient information pertaining to the risks and benefits of the procedure, as well as available alternatives. Additionally, the patient must be mentally competent enough to make an informed decision, and not be manipulated or coerced into a decision.

and Dr. James Dowling et al. was presented to a medical review board, then ultimately in the Louisiana Court of Appeals, 4th District demonstrating the importance and necessity of informed consent. Between 1963 and 1973, Mr. Milton Lugenbuhl experienced three inguinal hernias and unsuccessful surgeries, ultimately receiving a successful mesh surgery in 1974. Ten years later, Mr. Lugenbuhl experienced another hernia following open-heart surgery, seeking the expertise of Dr. Dowling and requesting a surgery involving mesh to repair the defect. Dr. Dowling performed the hernia repair without using mesh, professing the mesh was not worth the risk of infection and the size of the hernia did not require a mesh closure. Subsequently, the plaintiff, Mr. Milton Lugenbuhl filed an action against Dr. John Dowling, specifically for not using a surgical mesh, requested by the patient, Lugenbuhl, to repair the hernia, seeking damages incurred from additional surgeries due to additional hernias (Lugenbuhl v Dowling). According to court documents, the trial judge rendered a directed verdict to the jury to return a favorable verdict for Dr. Dowling on the medical malpractice, as there was not enough evidence. Next, the jury awarded $300,000 in favor of the plaintiff finding Dr. Dowling liable for medical malpractice and failure to obtain informed

Informed Consent allows a doctor to render treatment to a patient. By signing the document states that the patient understands the circumstances and what is required. This paper is to analyze the consent and non-consent, and ethical issues that can become a problem.

In the world of medicine, consent is an ethical and a legal agreement between patient and their health care provider; to participate in but not limited to research trials or to obtain medical or surgical interventions. Consent generally is expressed or implied. Express consent can be an oral declaration or it can be provided by printed document. (informed consent). Nevertheless, consent is not an independent entity. It does not function on its own. It works in conjunction with capacity. Spike 2017, stated informed consent is the single most important concept for understanding decision-making capacity. This is measured by a patient’s ability to understand, retain, process and re-communicate the information provided by the medical professionals.

Informed consent is commonly obtained from patients for medical treatment procedures and protocols. While it may serves as a litigated protection and assurance for healthcare professions to confidently perform their duties as healthcare providers, informed consent also ensures patient’s understanding and acknowledgement of their involvement in multiple medical interventions pertaining to their health. As the patient sign these consent documents, they might be unaware of the existence of uncertainty in medical practice. Medicine is the evident of probability because we are not physiologically created equal. Therefore, medical uncertainty is inevitable and physicians have to face tough choices to make a decision they believe to be in patient’s

The case of Daniels v. Durham (2005), ruled that “any duty to inform [plaintiff] of the risks of the procedures would have been on the privately retained physician,

Informed consent is defined as “permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences” and is the backbone to honorable physician patient interactions. Unfortunately, throughout history there have been many cases where physicians have used a patient’s lower socioeconomic status to manipulate the obtaining of informed consent. The AMA Code of Medical Ethics predates back to 1847, yet cases continue to arise directly breaking their key principles. These principles include autonomy, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence; and if followed ensure patients receive a high quality of care. Informed consent prior to any participation in experiments or procedures is essential for physicians to act within these guidelines. Autonomy allows patients to have free will and make decisions without coercion. Justice keeps all individuals in mind so resources are distributed fairly and all individuals are treated the same. Beneficence and Non-maleficence focus on the intent of the procedure to do only good and no harm. Even with these principles established there are discrepancies in on how they unfold in a clinical setting. The American Medical Association states physicians should assess their patient’s understanding of their medical condition, the recommended treatments, and document the physician-patient interaction. The Tuskegee, Abdullah vs Pfizer, and The Skid Row Cancer Studies are a few cases where these principles were ignored so physician and big pharmaceutical

"Apprised consent is required for every invasive medical procedure, from getting your auditory perceivers perforated to having an abortion."(Bob McDonnell). Apprised consent customarily is provided by the patient in a formal, indicted consent form. Apprised consent is a person 's accedence to sanction something to transpire, such as surgery or other invasive procedure, predicated on a full disclosure of jeopardies, benefits, alternatives, and consequences of refusal. If congruous apprised consent is not obtained, the patient may recuperate damages in an action against the medico under different theories of instauration. Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what will be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient 's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages. This is true, except in cases of emergency where the patient is insensate, and where it is obligatory to operate afore consent can be obtained, more recently, many states have enacted patient bill of rights statutes. These laws proscribe treating a patient without first providing compulsory information to obtain apprised consent. They withal are predicated on mundane law principles and the premise that patients have the right to make decisions about their own medical care and treatment (Backlund v. University of Washington, 1999). the doctrine of apprised consent requires the medico to explicate the nature and probable

Placing nurses in the difficult situation of obtaining informed consent has also been identified as a problematic area in my place of work. As stated by Westrick (2014), the delegation of obtaining an informed consent should never by the responsibility of the nurse. The physician who is performing the procedure is responsible for obtaining the informed consent (Westrick, 2014). It is merely the nurse’s duty to witness the informed consent (Westrick, 2014). The informed consent allows for the physician to give the patient the information needed to make an informed decision thus leading to the title of informed consent (Thomson Reuters, 2016).

I found a interesting article in a scholarly article by Faden RR; Beauchamp TL; King NM, 1986. The article is called "A history and theory of informed consent". I chose to do this web report on the "Informed Consent" definition from Chapter 10. Informed consent is getting permission before carrying out a healthcare intervention on a patient. This article provides a historical and conceptual review of informed consent, and it provides the conditions in which such consent is obtained as well. A distinction is made between two concepts of informed consent. First is the informed consent which is defined in terms of the conditions of a particular kind of autonomous authorization and second is the informed consent where the nature and acceptability

In today society, Informed consent should be the one term that every healthcare person should have very clear understanding of. Understanding the legality of the term and an absolute understanding of the patient’s rights is beneficial to the healthcare provider. Some healthcare provides assume just the patient to sign a consent form is enough to continue the patient treatment. The true definition of informed consent is when the physician or healthcare provider take the time to explain the all the possibly benefits, risk and alternatives in the patients procedure. This concept is based on standard the roles of the physician to disclose all information to the patient, so they can make an inform discussion. Final consent comes when the patient