Informed consent: Ethical and legal aspects

Thoracic Surgery Clinics

Volumn 15, Issue 2 SPEC. ISS., 2005, Pages 213-219

  Klove, Carole A ^a   DiBoise, Sarah J ^a   Pang, Betty ^b   Yarbrough, William C ^a  

^a LUCILE PACKARD CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURT; ETHICS; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL PROFESSION; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 18144402439     PISSN: 15474127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2005.02.005     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Mohr v Williams, 95 Minn 261 (1905)
2. Proffitt v Ricci, 463 A.2d 514, 517 (1983)
3. Warren BJ. Pennsylvania medical informed consent law: a call to protect patient autonomy rights by abandoning the battery approach. 38 Duq L. Rev 917 (2000)
4. Kottkamp NA. Finding clarity in a gray opinion: a critique of Pennsylvania informed consent doctrine. 61 U. Pitt. L. Rev 241 (1999)
5. Scott C. Why law pervades medicine: an essay on the ethics in health care. 14 ND J.L. Ethics & Pub Pol'y 245, 245 (2000)
6. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (1914)
7. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 93 (1914)
8. Washington v Harper, 494 US 210 (1990)
9. J.W. Berg, P.S. Appelbaum, and C.W. Lidz The legal requirements for disclosure and consent: history and current status J.W. Berg P.S. Appelbaum C.W. Lidz Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice 2001 Oxford University Press New York 42
10. Schloendorff, 105 N.E. 92 (1914)
11. Schloendorff, 105 N.E. 95 (1914)
12. Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170 (1957)
13. Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 181 (1957)
14. Mitchell v Robinson, 334 S.W.2d 11 (1960)
15. Natanson v Kline, 350 P.2d 1093 (1960)
16. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
17. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
18. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
19. Truman v Thomas, 611 P.2d 902 (1980)
20. Cobbs v Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 (1972)
21. Arato v Avedon, 858 P.2d 598 (1993)
22. Salgo v Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170, 181 (1957), Natanson v Kline, 350 P.2d 1093, 1104 (1960)
23. Johson v Kokemoor, 545 N.W. 2d 495 (1996)
24. Wis. Stat. § 448.30
25. Canterbury v Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
26. Johson v Kokemoor, 545 N.W. 2d 495, 510 (1996)
27. Moore v Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990)
28. Moore v Regents of University of California, 51 Cal.3d 120, 131-132(1990)
29. Alaska Stat § 09.55.556
30. California (Cobbs v Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 (1972)), Florida (Fla Stat Ann §766.103), New Mexico (Gerety v Demers, 589 P.2d 180 (1978)), Oregon (Ore Rev Stat § 677.097), Texas (Tex. Civ Prac. & Rem. Code § 74.101), and Utah (Utah Code Ann § 78-14-5)
31. J.W. Berg, P.S. Appelbaum, and C.W. Lidz Legal rules for recovery J.W. Berg P.S. Appelbaum C.W. Lidz Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice 2001 Oxford University Press New York 137 140
32. State of Tennessee, Dept. of Human Services v Northern, 563 S.W.2d 197, 209 (1978)
33. Propes v State, 68 Ga. App. 418 (1942)
34. Equipto Div Aurora Equip. Co. v Yarmouth, 1996 Wash. App. LEXIS 569 (1997)
35. Johnson v Johnson, 214 Minn. 462 (1943)
36. Estate of McKasson v Hamric, 70 Ark. App. 507 (2000)
37. Curran v Bosze, 141 Ill. 2d 473 (1990)
38. Pitts v Black, 608 F. Supp. 696 (1984)
39. Virgin Islands v Gumbs, 42 V.I. 79 (2000)
40. S. Layton Informed consent in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a study of the value of written warnings Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 32 1994 34 36
41. G. Askew Informed consent: can we educate patients? J R Coll Edinb 35 1990 308 310
42. S.J. Philipson Informed consent for research: a study to evaluate readability and processability to affect change J Invest Med 43 1995 459 467
43. M.K. Mayberry Towards better informed consent in endoscopy: a study of information and consent processes in gastroscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 13 2001 1467 1476