Influence of the law on risk and informed consent

British Medical Journal

Volumn 327, Issue 7417, 2003, Pages 731-734

  Mazur, Dennis J ^a,b  

^a PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 0141707896     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.731     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Slater v. Baker & Stapleton, 95 Eng. 860, 2 Wils. KB 359 (1767).
2. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560, 317 P.2d 170 (1957).
3. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972).
4. Skene L, Smallwood R. Informed consent: lessons from Australia. BMJ 2003;324:39-41.
5. [1998] E and WCA 2243 (20 May 1998).
6. Braddock CH 3rd, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 1999;282:2313-20.
7. United States Government. Code of federal regulations. www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr (accessed 21 Aug 2003). This document is sponsored by the Office of the Federal Registrar, National Archives and Records Administration on the United States Government Printing Office web site.
8. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington DC. DHEW Publications, 1978. (78-0012). http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3 (accessed 21 Aug 2003).
9. United States Government. Code of federal regulations. 46.111. www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr (accessed 21 Aug 2003).] This document is sponsored by the Office of the Federal Registrar, National Archives and Records Administration on the United States Government Printing Office web site.
10. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T, Mulvey EP, Fletcher K. The MacArthur treatment competence study. Law Hum Behav 1995;19:105-74.
11. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Mulvey EP, Fletcher K. The MacArthur treatment competence study. 2. Measures of abilities related to competence to consent to treatment. Law Hum Behav 1995;19:127-48.
12. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS. The MacArthur treatment competence study. 3. Abilities of patients to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments. Law Hum Behav 1995;19:149-74.
13. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS. The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med Care 2002;40(suppl 9):V55-6.
14. Dresser R. Advance directives in dementia research: promoting autonomy and protecting subjects. IRB 2001;23:1-6.
15. Horng S, Emanuel EJ, Wilfond B. Rackoff J, Martz K, Grady C, Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase 1 oncology trials. N Engl J Med 2002;347:2134-40.