Informed consent: Can a patient ever be fully informed?

Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 601-604

  Lupton, Martin ^a  

^a CHELSEA AND WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adequate; Afshar; Consent; Informed; Patient; Prudent

Indexed keywords

EYE SURGERY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEGLIGENCE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

EID: 27844609309     PISSN: 1040872X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.gco.0000191900.61697.74     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Pothier DD. Many patients may not understand consent forms [letter]. BMJ 2005; 330:1151.
2. T. [adult refusal of medical treatment], Re [1993] Fam95, [1992] All ER 649.
3. Brazier M. Medicine, patients and the law. 3rd ed. London: Penguin; 2003.
4. Irvine Lord. The patient, the doctor, their lawyers and the judge: rights and duties. Med Law Rev 1999; 7:255-268.
5. Department of Health. Reference Guide to Consent for Examination and Treatment. 2001. http://www.cppe.man.ac.uk/NHS_Plan/Consent.pdf. [Accessed 16 September 2005] This guidance sets out the legal requirements surrounding consent with exemplary clarity.
6. House of Lords. Chester v. Afshar. 2004. http://www.publications. parliament. uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semsimple&STEMMER=en&WORDS= afshar& ALL=&ANY=&PHRASE=&CATEGORIES=&SIMPLE= afshar&SPEAKER=& COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&ANCHOR= muscat_highlighter_first_match&URL =/pa/ld200304/ldjudgmt/jd041014/cheste-1. htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match. [Accessed 8 August 2005]
7. Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] All ER 119.
8. Wheat K. Progress of the prudent patient: consent after Chester v. Afshar. Anaesthesia 2005; 60:217-219. This article sets out, from a legal perspective, the changes in the law brought about by Chester v. Afshar.
9. Sidaway v. Board of Governors of the Bethlehem Royal Hospital & the Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC 871 (HL).
10. Kennedy I, Grubb A. Medical law: text with materials. London: Butterworths; 2000.
11. Bolitho v. Hackney Health Authority [1997] All ER 7710.
12. Pearce v. United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [1999], 78 [69].
13. Rogers v. Whitaker, 67 ALJR 47.
14. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. London: General Medical Council; 1999.
15. NHS Litigation Authority. NHSLA risk alert: informed consent, issue 4. London: NHS Litigation Authority; 2004. http://www.inpracticetraining.-com/pdfs/ case_reports/riskalert4informedconsent04.pdf. [Accessed 16 September 2005]
16. Mason JK, McCall Smith R. Law and medical ethics. London: Butterworths; 1999.
17. Ross N. Improving surgical consent. Lancet 2004; 364:812-813.
18. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Advice for hysteroscopy. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2005. http://www.rcog.org.uk/resources/Public/pdf/consent1_hysteroscopy. pdf. [Accessed 16 September 2005]