Doctor's views on disclosing or withholding information on low risks of complication

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 67-70

  Palmboom, G G ^a   Willems, D L ^a   Janssen, N B A T ^a   de Haes, J C J M ^a  

^a ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ETHICS; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; PHYSICIAN; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DISCLOSURE; ETHICS, CLINICAL; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; PHYSICIANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33846986369     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014936     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Skolbekken JA. The risk epidemic in medical journals. Soc Sci Med 1995,40:291-305.
2. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
3. Smith R. Communicating risk: the main work of doctors. BMJ 2003;327:0-f.
4. Lloyd AJ. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Qual Health Care 2001;10:114-8.
5. Slovic P. The perception of risk. London: Earthscon Publications, 2000.
6. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory. An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. J Econom Soc 1979;47:263.
7. Gigerenzer G. Calculated risks. How to know when numbers deceive you. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002.
8. Dickenson D. Risk and luck in medical ethics. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2003.
9. Gifford SM. The meaning of lumps: a case study of the ambiguities of risk. In: Janes CR, Stall R, Gifford SM, eds. Athropology and epidemiology. Interdisciplinary approaches to the study of health and disease. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
10. Hingorani M, Wong T, Vafidis G. Patients' and doctors' attitudes to amount of information given alter unintended injury during treatment: cross sectional, questionnaire survey. BMJ 1999;318:640-1.
11. O'Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. The Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh, 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
12. Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage, 1989.
13. Damore LJ, Rantis PC, Vernava AM III, et al. Colonoscopic perforations. Etiology, diagnosis, and management. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:1308-14.
14. Araghizadeh FY, Timmcke AE, Opelka FG, et al. Colonoscopic perforations. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:713-6.
15. Cobb WS, Heniford BT, Sigmon LB, et al. Colonoscopic perforations: incidence, management, and outcomes. Am Surg 2004;70:750-7.
16. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.
17. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the unexpected. Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
18. Forster HP, Schwartz J, DeRenzo E. Reducing legal risk by practicing patient-centered medicine. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1217-9.
19. Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects http://www.ccmo-online.nl (accessed 1 Mar 2006).