Informed choice requires information about both benefits and harms

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 268-269

  Jorgensen K J ^a   Brodersen, J ^b   Hartling, O J ^c   Nielsen, M ^a   Gotzsche P C ^a  

^a International Center for Research and Research Training in Endocrine Disruption of Male Reproduction and Child Health   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^c LILLEBAELT HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST TUMOR; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LETTER; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RADIOGRAPHY; RISK FACTOR;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BREAST NEOPLASMS; DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 67349139381     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.027961     Document Type: Letter

References (14)

1. Østerlie W, Solbjør M, Skolbekken JA, et al. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics 2008;34:e5.
2. Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Content of invitations to publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ 2006;332:538-41.
3. Bonfill X, Marzo M, Pladevall M, et al. Strategies for increasing the participation of women in community breast cancer screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;1:CD002943.
4. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;4:CD001877.
5. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290:2129-37.
6. Brodersen J. Measuring psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening results - breast cancer as an example (dissertation). Department of General Practice, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Månedsskrift for Praktisk Lægegerning 2006. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/fbspretrieve/5869160/John_Brodersen_phd_afhandling_2007 (accessed 3 Feb 2009).
7. Vainio H, Bianchini F. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention. Vol 7: breast cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002.
8. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, et al, eds. European Commission. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. 4th edn. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006.
9. Jørgensen KJ, Klahn A, Gøtzsche PC. Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med 2007;5:12
10. General Medical Council. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. London: General Medical Council, 2 June, 2008. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance/index.asp (accessed 17 June, 2008).
11. Raffle AE, Gray M. Screening: Evidence and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
12. Sundhedsloven. Available at: http://www.im.dk/artikler_im_dk/Files/Fil1/3857.pdf (accessed 3 Feb 2009).
13. Lov om pasientrettigheter. Available at: http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19990702-063.html (accessed 3 Feb 2009)
14. Gøtzsche PC, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, et al. Breast screening: the facts-or maybe not? BMJ 2009;338:b86.