PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3377623

Two models of implementing informed consent.

C W Lidz·P S Appelbaum·A Meisel
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The doctrine of informed consent has been controversial since its inception. In spite of the professed ideal of improving physician-patient communication, many commentators have argued that it interferes with the relationship. However, the problem may not be the doctrine itself but rather the manner in which it is usually implemented. This article describes two different ways in which informed consent can be implemented. The event model treats informed consent as a procedure to be performed once in each treatment course, which must cover all legal elements at that time. The process model, in contrast, tries to integrate informing the patient into the continuing dialogue between physician and patient that is a routine part of diagnosis and treatment. We suggest that the process model has many benefits.

Explore related subjects

DisclosureEthics, MedicalHumansInformed ConsentModels, PsychologicalMoral ObligationsPatient ParticipationPhysician's RolePhysician-Patient RelationsRisk AssessmentSick RoleSocial ValuesProfessional Patient RelationshipJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C W Lidz, P S Appelbaum, A Meisel. 1988. Two models of implementing informed consent.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3377623/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1999

Informed consent to septoplasty: an anecdote from the field.

This paper tells the story of events that led up to a septoplasty and the consequences that followed it. The patient is a medical ethicist. After scratching the inside of a nostril in 1976, he suffered with occasional bleeding and irritation for almost two decades. He tried topical treatment. As this failed, he sought help from an ENT specialist. The paper relates the conduct of the patient and others (friends in the medical field, the patient's spouse, nurses and anesthesiologists) vis-à-vis informed consent.

Disclosure↗
PubMed1999

A commentary on 'Informed consent to septoplasty: an anecdote from the field'.

This paper is an analysis of the events recounted in 'Informed consent to septoplasty: An anecdote from the field.' As a commentary, it assesses the behavior of many agents who are parties to the story - physicians, nurses, friends of the patient, the patient's wife and the patient himself. This story is interesting for being mundane. The medical condition involved and the failures of care are not momentous. The patient's role as a medical ethicist led him to see things in particular perspective and motivated or influenced his conduct sometimes not in the smartest of ways. Several accounts of informed consent are reviewed and used as measures of what happened. The moral vision behind informed consent, the rights and duties it implies and the elements of its contents are identified. No account was fulfilled. Some of the reasons and causes for this are discussed. Many sources of information and forces acting on the situation are explored. Post-operative experiences include severe irritation and discomfort as well as severe frustration and a sense of alienation and abandonment. The case communicates a hint about what physicians do not know in order to have informed consent occur. Physicians' lack of awareness about, e.g., post-operative experience means that they will not provide what the informed aspect of informed consent requires. Patients can feel abandoned and perhaps are abandoned in a variety of ways, subtle and not so subtle. A few issues besides informed consent are discussed (the roles of wives in working at their physician-husband's front desk, the language of reassurance).

Disclosure↗