Legal obligation of physicians to disclose information to patients.

Obtaining a patient''s consent is a routine daily process for physicians, although many are unaware of the scope of this legal obligation. In 1980 the Supreme Court of Canada changed the law relating to informed consent; promotion of patient autonomy shifted the focus from a standard of professional disclosure to one of a "reasonable patient." Physicians have a legal obligation to disclose to patients specific information, the scope of which is determined by a court on the basis of a reasonable patient''s expectation and the circumstances of the case. This gives rise to many controversies in the practice of clinical medicine. It is difficult for physicians to know which treatment risks require disclosure, since this is decided by a court in a retrospective analysis of the evidence. Will the court recognize exceptions to the duty of disclosing information? If several health care professionals are involved in a patient''s care who has the duty to disclose information? Can this duty be delegated? This paper provides physicians with guidelines that are consistent with the promotion of patient autonomy and comply with the doctrine of informed consent. In addition, it suggests ways of improving awareness of the doctrine and procedures to ease its application.     

Obstetric Anaesthesia Services in the United Kingdom

In a survey of obstetric anaesthetic services in the United Kingdom questionnaires were sent to 398 hospital maternity units and 347 general-practitioner maternity units, of which 344 and 272 respectively were returned. Many hospitals were unable to provide an anaesthetist for obstetric surgery only, and few consultant anaesthetist sessions were allocated to obstetric surgery, particularly in regional hospitals in England and Wales. Constant supervision of junior anaesthetic staff with under 12 months'' experience was lacking in several hospitals. Endotracheal intubation is widely used throughout the United Kingdom. Though regional analgesic techniques are used by most anaesthetists it is impossible to provide a 24-hour regional analgesic service in all but a few hospitals.     

Reflection on family consent: based on a pregnant death in a beijing hospital

The ‘family consent’ process has been placed at the centre of Chinese clinical practice. Although there has been critical analysis of how the process functions in relation to the autonomy and rights of patients, there has been little examination of the perceptions and attitude of patients and their families and the medical professionals, in relation to moral dilemmas that arise in real cases in the bioethical discourse. When faced with a consent form in an emergency situation, the family member's capacity to act is reduced, as he/she becomes enmeshed in the hospital structure of tacit, socially‐imposed rules. In a questionnaires based on a real death case in 2008, 70.9% of the surveyed medical professionals (n = 3,665) disagreed with performing surgery without the consent of the family even if the patient's life was in danger, while 36.6% of the surveyed patients (n = 1,198) hold the same position. This work demonstrates the weakness of the family consent process as a safeguard of patient's autonomy. Finally, I argue that saving the patient's life should be the overriding obligation rather than the respect for the surrogate's autonomous choice at such a decisive moment.     

RESPECTING AUTONOMY WITHOUT DISCLOSING INFORMATION

There is widespread agreement that it would be both morally and legally wrong to treat a competent patient, or to carry out research with a competent participant, without the voluntary consent of that patient or research participant. Furthermore, in medical ethics it is generally taken that that consent must be informed. The most widely given reason for this has been that informed consent is needed to respect the patient's or research participant's autonomy. In this article I set out to challenge this claim by considering in detail each of the three most prominent ways in which ‘autonomy’ has been conceptualized in the medical ethics literature. I will argue that whilst these accounts support the claim that consent is needed if the treatment of competent patients, or research on competent individuals, is to respect their autonomy, they do not support the claim that informed consent is needed for this purpose.     

Legal Liability to Volunteers in Testing New Drugs

Scientists test new drugs by giving them to volunteers. In spite of every precaution, the drug may harm the volunteer. Under Canadian law, can he recover damages against any of the persons connected with the test? He cannot succeed against the scientist if the latter had made complete disclosure of the risks and had then obtained the volunteer''s free consent. Where the subject of a test is a child or one of unsound mind, the guardian''s consent probably does not protect the scientist from a possible claim by the subject. Where a married woman is a volunteer, her husband''s consent is unnecessary. The volunteer cannot succeed against his family physician who referred him to the scientist unless the physician took an active part in an experiment that was conducted negligently or without a proper consent. The volunteer cannot succeed against the maker unless he has negligently prepared the drug or given misleading information.     

Rethinking Informed Consent in Research on Heroin‐Assisted Treatment

Can heroin addicts give consent to research on trials in which heroin is prescribed to them? Analyses of addicts and informed consent have been objects of debate in several articles. Informed consent requires the agent not only to be competent but also to give consent voluntarily. This has been questioned because of alleged features of heroin addiction. Until recently the discussion has focused on heroin addicts' desires for heroin, whether these are irresistible and thus pose a problem for giving consent. Still, in light of empirical evidence, there seems to be a consensus more or less that the problem is not whether the addicts can resist their desire for heroin. A recent article concentrates specifically on heroin addicts' false assumptions of options and voluntariness. We argue that the prevailing framing of the options in this discussion in terms of heroin and access to it is problematic. The way in which the options are typically laid out suggests an assumption that participation in the research is allegedly based on the addicts' views on using the drug. We argue that this way of presenting the options is, first, a mismatch to the studies carried out and, second, symptomatic of potential misconceptions about heroin addiction and addicts. Furthermore, we also suggest that the account of voluntariness needs to be realistic in order for subjects to be able to give consent voluntarily in actual situations, and for medical research to carry out studies on improving outcomes in addiction treatment in an ethical way.     

Obstetric anaesthetic and analgesic services in Wales.

A survey of obstetric anaesthetic services in Wales covering 21 major units in which over 31 000 deliveries take place annually showed inadequacies in staffing at consultant and resident anaesthetist level. At least 20 additional consultant sessions were required to meet the recommendations of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. If patients'' requests for epidural analgesia are to be met some reorganisation and centralisation of facilities is needed.     

Respecting Autonomy Over Time: Policy and Empirical Evidence on Re‐Consent in Longitudinal Biomedical Research

Re‐consent in research, the asking for a new consent if there is a change in protocol or to confirm the expectations of participants in case of change, is an under‐explored issue. There is little clarity as to what changes should trigger re‐consent and what impact a re‐consent exercise has on participants and the research project. This article examines applicable policy statements and literature for the prevailing arguments for and against re‐consent in relation to longitudinal cohort studies, tissue banks and biobanks. Examples of re‐consent exercises are presented, triggers and non‐triggers for re‐consent discussed and the conflicting attitudes of commentators, participants and researchers highlighted. We acknowledge current practice and argue for a greater emphasis on ‘responsive autonomy,’ that goes beyond a one‐time consent and encourages greater communication between the parties involved. A balance is needed between respecting participants' wishes on how they want their data and samples used and enabling effective research to proceed.     

Does benefit justify research with children?

The inclusion of children in research gives rise to a difficult ethical question: What justifies children's research participation and exposure to research risks when they cannot provide informed consent? This question arises out of the tension between the moral requirement to obtain a subject's informed consent for research participation, on the one hand, and the limited capacity of most children to provide informed consent, on the other. Most agree that children's participation in clinical research can be justified. But the ethical justification for exposing children to research risks in the absence of consent remains unclear. One prevalent group of arguments aims to justify children's risk exposure by appealing to the concept of benefit. I call these ‘benefit arguments’. Prominent versions of this argument defend the idea that broadening our understanding of the notion of benefit to include non‐medical benefits (such as the benefit of a moral education) helps to justify children's research participation. I argue that existing benefit arguments are not persuasive and raise problems with the strategy of appealing to broader notions of benefit to justify children's exposure to research risk.     

Informed Consent in California: Latent Liability Without `Negligence'

Informed consent is a legal obligation due from a physician to his patient, an obligation which may not be met by the physician''s skillful treatment of his patient. It may only be met by the treating physician obtaining from his patient knowing authorization for carrying out the intended medical procedure. The physician is required to disclose whatever would be material to his patient''s decision, including the nature and purpose of the procedure, and the risks and alternatives. The disclosures should be made by the physician to his patient, and not through use of consent forms which are not particular to individual patients. To minimize any subsequent claim by the patient that there was a lack of adequate disclosures, the physician should record in the patient''s chart the circumstances of the patient''s consent, and should not rely on the patient''s unreliable ability to recall those circumstances.     

Should consent be required for organ procurement?

Must we obtain a patient's consent before posthumously removing her organs? According to the consent requirement, in order to permissibly remove organs from a deceased person, it is necessary that her prior consent be obtained. If the consent requirement is true, then this seems to rule out policies that do not seek and obtain a patient's prior consent to organ donation, while at the same time vindicating policies that do seek and obtain patient consent. In this paper, however, I argue that once we recognize the difference between consent, on the one hand, and wishing or desiring, on the other, we will see that obtaining consent before organ removal is neither necessary nor sufficient to respect patient autonomy in organ procurement.     

Can children withhold consent to treatment?

A dilemma exists when a doctor is faced with a child or young person who refuses medically indicated treatment. The Gillick case has been interpreted by many to mean that a child of sufficient age and intelligence could validly consent or refuse consent to treatment. Recent decisions of the Court of Appeal on a child''s refusal of medical treatment have clouded the issue and undermined the spirit of the Gillick decision and the Children Act 1989. It is now the case that a child patient whose competence is in doubt will be found rational if he or she accepts the proposal to treat but may be found incompetent if he or she disagrees. Practitioners are alerted to the anomalies now exhibited by the law on the issue of children''s consent and refusal. The impact of the decisions from the perspectives of medicine, ethics, and the law are examined. Practitioners should review each case of child care carefully and in cases of doubt seek legal advice.     

Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer.

Methods of obtaining informed consent have evolved differently in Western countries without substantive information on the impact of these different practices on the patients. A randomised study was performed to compare two commonly adopted methods of seeking consent to randomised treatment: an individual approach at the discretion of each doctor and a uniform policy of total disclosure of all relevant information. The impact of both consent procedures on the patient''s understanding and anxiety levels and on the doctor-patient relationship was assessed by means of a questionnaire given soon after the consent interview. Fifty seven patients were assigned at random to two groups: to 29 patients an individual approach to seeking consent was adopted and to 28 patients all relevant information was given. Seven patients refused consent to randomised treatment, with slightly more refusals by patients in the total disclosure group (5 v 2, p = 0.25). The main effects of total disclosure of all information compared with an individual approach to seeking consent were: a better understanding of treatment and side effects and of research aspects of the treatments; less willingness to agree to randomised treatment; and increased anxiety. No significant differences were found in patients'' perceptions of the doctor-patient relationship. A repeat questionnaire given three to four weeks later no longer showed significant differences between the two groups.     

Withholding consent to lifesaving treatment: three cases.

The refusal of children or their parents to consent to treatment that professionals regard as essential always results in a dilemma. Responding to such refusals demands careful and sensitive clinical and thicolegal intervention and close cooperation among professionals, in particular doctors and social workers. Since the introduction of the Children Act 1989 the number of cases in which children have withheld consent to lifesaving treatment has risen, and it is now increasingly recognised that children have a right to have their views legally represented if a local authority or health authority seeks a court''s leave to carry out treatment. Professionals have to consider which legal route, under either the Children Act or the Mental Health Act, is likely to be best for the individual child.     

The ethics of biobanking: Assessing the right to control problem for broad consent

The biobank consent debate is one with deeply held convictions on both the ‘broad’ and ‘specific’ side with little sign of resolution. Recently, Thomas Ploug and Soren Holm have developed an alternative to both specific and broad consent: a meta‐consent framework. The aim here is to consider whether meta‐consent provides a ‘solution’ to the biobank consent debate. We clarify what ‘meta‐consent’ actually is (arguing that the label is a misnomer and ‘consent à la carte’ is more accurate). We identify problems with Ploug and Holm's arguments, and some challenges for meta‐consent. We focus on whether there is any ethical obligation to provide consent à la carte. There may seem to be so, especially if we draw upon an unclear appeal to the ethical significance of ‘respect for autonomy’. Similarly, there might seem to be an intuitive inference from the fact that ethically legitimate research requires informed consent to the conclusion that it thereby requires consent à la carte. It is shown that this line of inference is mistaken.     

The ethics of learning from patients

Is it ethical for medicine to use patients as learning tools for medical students if these patients have not been given a chance to provide truly informed consent? Dr. Caroline Shooner raises this question in the following article, which claimed second prize in CMAJ''s 1996 Logie Medical Ethics Essay Contest. She considers the case of a patient whose trust was shaken when a medical student performed a chest-tube insertion. Shooner concludes that psychologic harm could have been avoided had the patient''s right to informed consent been respected. She also argues that few patients will turn down a chance to help students learn if the request is made properly and openly.     

Informed consent and nudging

In order to avoid patient abuse, under normal situations before performing a medical intervention on a patient, a physician must obtain informed consent from that patient, where to give genuine informed consent a patient must be competent, understand her condition, her options and their expected risks and benefits, and must expressly consent to one of those options. However, many patients refrain from the option that their physician believes to be best, and many physicians worry that their patients make irrational healthcare decisions, hindering their ability to provide efficient healthcare for their patients. Some philosophers have proposed a solution to this problem: they advocate that physicians nudge their patients to steer them towards their physician's preferred option. A nudge is any influence designed to predictably alter a person's behavior without limiting their options or giving them reasons to act. Proponents of nudging contend that nudges are consistent with obtaining informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with genuine informed consent, as it violates a physician's obligation to tell their patients the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during adequate disclosure.     

Professional psychological support and psychotherapy methods for oncology patients. Basic concepts and issues

Background

The essence of psychological support provided to oncology patients is to adjust its methods to the needs and expectations arising from the distressful experience of cancer and its treatment.

Aim

The aim of this study is to present methods of professional psychological support to be used in work with oncology patients during the treatment and follow-up stages.

Materials and methods

The article is a review of psychological and psychotherapy methods most often applied to oncology patients.

Conclusion

Methods of psychological support depend on the current condition of a patient. The support will be effective if provided in adequate time and place with the patient''s express consent and in line with their individual needs and expectations.     

Review by a local medical research ethics committee of the conduct of approved research projects,by examination of patients' case notes,consent forms,and research records and by interview.

OBJECTIVE: To monitor the conduct of medical research projects that have already been approved by the local medical research ethics committee. DESIGN: Follow up study of ethically approved studies (randomly selected from all the studies approved in the previous year) by examination of patients'' case notes, consent forms, and research records and by interview of the researchers at their workplace. SETTING: Tayside, Scotland (mixed rural and urban population). SUBJECTS: 30 research projects approved by Tayside local medical research ethics committee. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the agreed protocol, particularly for recruitment (obtaining and recording informed consent) and for specific requirements of the ethics committee, including notification of changes to the protocol and of adverse events. RESULTS: In one project only oral consent had been obtained, and in a quarter of the studies one or more consent forms were incorrectly completed. Inadequate filing of case notes in five studies and of consent forms in six made them unavailable for scrutiny. Adverse events were reported, but there was a general failure to report the abandoning or non-starting of projects in two studies the investigators failed to notify a change in the responsible researcher. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of medical research by local medical research ethics committees promotes and preserves ethical standards, protects subjects and researchers, discourages fraud, and has the support of investigators. We recommend that 10% of projects should undergo on-site review, with all others monitored by questionnaire. This would require about six person hours of time and a salary bill of 120 pounds per study monitored.