Reviews
Contemporary interpretation of informed consent: autonomy and paternalism
Louise Robertson
Published Online:7 Jun 2016https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2016.77.6.358
Abstract
The Supreme Court's decision in the Montgomery case has questioned what is meant by ‘informed consent’. Clinicians must establish who is a reasonable patient and exactly what they want to know. Obtaining informed consent requires a relationship to be built between patient and clinician and must respect patient autonomy.
References
- (2010) Fewer than half of people saving for retirement. Guardian 3 April Google Scholar
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118 Google ScholarBolitho Appellant and City and Hackney Health Authority Respondents [1998] AC 232 HL Google Scholar- (2015) The impossibility of informed consent. J Med Ethics 41(1): 44–7 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102308) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (2011) Clinical negligence. In: Brazier MCave E. Medicine, Patients and the Law. 5th edn. Penguin, London Google Scholar
- (1978) Lottery winners and accident victims: is happiness relative. J Pers Soc Psychol 36: 917–27 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.8.917) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2016) The Tuskegee Timeline. www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm (accessed 23 May 2016 ) Google Scholar- (1985) Respect for persons. In: Harris J. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. Routledge, London: 193 Google Scholar
- (2009) Subjectivity in risk disclosure: Considering the position of the particular patient. Professional Negligence 25: 3–14 (Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779514564559) Google Scholar
- (2014) Innovation in medicine through degeneration in law? A critical perspective and the medical innovation bill. Medical Law International 14(4): 266–73 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0968533214564100) Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2005) Limits on patient responsibility. J Med Philos 30: 189–206 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310590926858) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (2014) Forced to be free? Increasing patient autonomy by constraining it. J Med Ethics 40(5): 293–300 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100207) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (2003) Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: reactions to changes in marital status. J Pers Soc Psychol 84: 527–39 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.527) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (2002) Beyond Bolam and Bolithio. Medical Law Journal 5: 205 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/096853320200500305) Google Scholar
- (2013) The healthcare professional–patient relationship: setting the context for consent. In: Maclean A. Autonomy, Informed Consent and Medical Law: A Relational Challenge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 72–109 Google Scholar
- (2010) Mason and McCall Smith's Law and Medical Ethics. 8th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford Google Scholar
Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 11 Supreme Court Google Scholar- (2003) Some limits of informed consent. J Med Ethics 29(1): 4–7 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.1.4) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (1997) Should informed consent be based on rational beliefs? J Med Ethics 40: 282–8 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.23.5.282) Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1989) The myth of informed consent: in daily practice and in clinical trials. J Med Ethics 15: 6–11 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.15.1.6) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (1984) Physician and Patient: Respect for Mutuality. Theor Med 5: 43–60 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00489245) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- (1985) Building an effective doctor-patient relationship: from patient satisfaction to patient participation. Soc Sci Med 21(2): 115–20 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(85)90079-6) Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
Spencer v Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 1058 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 172 (Apr) Google Scholar- Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (1949) U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C: 2: 181–2 Google Scholar
