Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:17:46.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

John R. Williams
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor University of Ottawa
Peter A. Singer
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
A. M. Viens
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Mrs. A is an 85-year-old woman living at home with her husband, who has moderately severe Alzheimer disease and for whom she provides daily care. She has an 8.5 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm. Three months ago she consulted a vascular surgeon, who recommended surgical repair of her aneurysm. However, another physician told Mrs. A that she “would never survive the operation.” Mrs. A decided to “take her chances” and refused surgery, primarily because of her wish to provide uninterrupted care for her husband; however, she agreed to discuss the decision further with the surgeon at a future visit. Before such a visit can take place, however, Mrs. A is taken to the emergency department after collapsing at home with abdominal pain. Physical examination reveals a systolic blood pressure of 50 mmHg and a tender pulsatile abdominal mass. Mrs. A is moaning and barely conscious. The surgeon diagnoses a ruptured aortic aneurysm and believes that Mrs. A will die without emergency surgery.

Mr. B is a 25-year-old man affected by extensive muscular atrophy resulting from Guillain–Barré syndrome. For two years he has been dependent on a ventilator and his prognosis indicates no chance of recovery. One day he announces that he wants the ventilator support withdrawn and that he be allowed to die because he considers his life intolerable. Those caring for him disagree with his decision and the reasons for it because he is not terminally ill and because others with his condition have meaningful and fulfilling lives.[…]

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, R. M. and Lidz, C. W. (2004). Clinical aspects of consent in healthcare. In Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd edn, Vol. 3, ed. Post, S. G., New York: Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 1293–5.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. and Faden, R. R. (2004). Informed consent: II. Meaning and elements of informed consent. In Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd edn, Vol. 3, ed. Post, S. G., New York: Macmillan Reference USA, pp. 1277–80.Google Scholar
Beahrs, J. O. and Gutheil, T. G. (2001). Informed consent in psychotherapy. Am J Psychiatry 158: 4–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
British Medical Association (2003). Consent Tool Kit. London: British Medical Association (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/consenttk2).
Cohen, H. and Britten, N. (2003). Who decides about prostate cancer treatment? A qualitative study. Fam Pract 20: 724–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Council of Europe (1997). Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Brussels: Council of Europe (http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/WhatYouWant.asp?NT=164&CM=7&DF=).
Deber, R. B. (1994). Physicians in health care management: 8. The patient–physician partnership: decision making, problem solving and the desire to participate. CMAJ 151: 423–7.Google Scholar
Emanuel, E. J. and Emanuel, L. L. (1992). Four models of the physician–patient relationship. JAMA 267: 2221–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ende, J., Kazis, L., Ash, A., et al. (1989). Measuring patients' desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med 4: 23–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ford, S., Schofield, T., and Hope, T. (2003). What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med 56: 589–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. A., et al. (2004). Cancer patient preferences for communication of prognosis in the metastatic setting. J Clin Oncol 22: 1721–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., and Katz, N. R. (1988). Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters. Med Care 26: 657–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janz, N. K., Wren, P. A., Copeland, L. A., et al. (2004). Patient–physician concordance: preferences, perceptions, and factors influencing the breast cancer surgical decision. J Clin Oncol 22: 3091–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsson, U. S., Svardsudd, K., Wedel, H., et al. (1990). Patient involvement in decision-making in surgical and orthopaedic practice: the Project Perioperative Risk. Soc Sci Med 28: 829–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerman, C. E., Brody, D. S., Caputo, G. C., et al. (1990). Patients' perceived involvement in care scale: relationship to attitudes about illness and medical care. J Gen Intern Med 5: 29–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levinson, W., Kao, A., Kuby, A., et al. (2005). Not all patients want to participate in decision making. A national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med 20: 531–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mark, J. S. and Spiro, H. (1990). Informed consent for colonoscopy. Arch Intern Med 150: 777–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazur, D. J., Hickam, D. H., Mazur, M. D., et al. (2005). The role of doctor's opinion in shared decision making: what does shared decision making really mean when considering invasive medical procedures?Health Expect 8: 97–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinquart, M. and Duberstein, P. R. (2004). Information needs and decision-making processes in older cancer patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 51: 69–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siminoff, L. A. and Fetting, J. H. (1991). Factors affecting treatment decisions for a life-threatening illness: the case of medical treatment of breast cancer. Soc Sci Med 32: 813–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, M. A. (1995). Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 152: 1423–33.Google ScholarPubMed
Suls, J. and Wan, C. K. (1989). Effects of sensory and procedural information on coping with stressful medical procedures and pain: a meta analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol 57: 372–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
UK General Medical Council (1998). Seeking Patients' Consent: The Ethical Considerations. London: General Medical Council.Google Scholar
Waterworth, S. and Luker, K. A. (1990). Reluctant collaborators: do patients want to be involved in decisions concerning care?J Adv Nurs 15: 971–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Medical Association (2005). Declaration of Lisbon on the Rights of the Patient. Ferney-Voltaire, France: World Medical Association (www.wma.net/e/policy/l4.htm).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Consent
  • Edited by Peter A. Singer, University of Toronto, A. M. Viens, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics
  • Online publication: 30 October 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511545566.003
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Consent
  • Edited by Peter A. Singer, University of Toronto, A. M. Viens, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics
  • Online publication: 30 October 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511545566.003
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Consent
  • Edited by Peter A. Singer, University of Toronto, A. M. Viens, University of Oxford
  • Book: The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics
  • Online publication: 30 October 2009
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511545566.003
Available formats
×