PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10090693

Understanding informed consent.

R Macklin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Properly understood, informed consent is a process of communication between researcher and subject. The purpose of the informed consent form is to document the informed consent discussion. The place of informed consent in leading international codes of research ethics is reviewed. Some prominent examples of past violations of informed consent are discussed. Even when properly understood, informed consent presents an array of ongoing problems and unanswered questions. These include the question of how much information must be given to research subjects, and how much is too much; and how to ensure the full voluntariness of subjects' consent, especially when the researcher is also the patient's physician. An ongoing problem is the 'therapeutic misconception'--the belief that proposed research is a promising treatment intended to benefit the subjects. The complexity of the technical language in which consent forms are written remains a problem, though this can easily be remedied.

Explore related subjects

CommunicationEthics, MedicalHumansInformed ConsentPractice Guidelines as TopicBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Macklin. 1999. Understanding informed consent.. https://doi.org/10.1080/028418699431843

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Intraoperative communication of residents with faculty: perception versus reality.

INTRODUCTION: During a surgical procedure, an attending may propose a surgical treatment that a resident believes is not the standard of care based on previous readings, discussions with other faculty, or experience. We hypothesized that resident disagreements over intraoperative management are common and are handled differently by residents than faculty members perceive. METHODS: Surveys were sent to 68 residents (82% response) and 45 faculty (91% response) in general surgery and seven subspecialties. Questions were asked to determine the frequency of disagreements and the differences in perceptions of how residents should act when they have disagreements over the intraoperative decisions of attendings. Significance was defined using Fisher's exact test at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Residents reported having major disagreements with faculty over intraoperative decisions as often as monthly (41%) or two to three times per year (37%). Estimates of the frequency of major resident disagreements did not differ between attendings and residents. Fewer residents felt comfortable asking the faculty to discuss their intraoperative decisions than was perceived by faculty members (41% vs 78%, P < 0.001). Residents at all levels are less comfortable than perceived by their mentors in discussing intraoperative decisions even when residents believe that patient injury may result. Residents felt that most of their disagreements occurred because of attending knowledge deficit, while most attendings attributed these differences to resident knowledge deficits. CONCLUSION: Residents frequently have disagreements with faculty over intraoperative management. Education to improve preoperative and intraoperative communication between surgical residents and faculty is needed.

Communication↗