ArticleJournal of medical ethics2002
Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- What a signature adds to the consent process.Surgical endoscopy · 2008Trial
- Novel consent process for research in dying patients unable to give consent.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Trial
- Knowledge and attitude toward informed consent among private dental practitioners in bathinda city, punjab, India.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2015Article
- Ethical challenges and solutions regarding delirium studies in palliative care.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2014Review
- From the patient's perspective: is there a need to improve the quality of informed consent for surgery in training hospitals?The Permanente journal · 2013Article
- Evaluating the quality of informed consent and contemporary clinical practices by medical doctors in South Africa: an empirical study.BMC medical ethics · 2013Article
- Clinicians' knowledge of informed consent.Journal of medical ethics · 2007Article
- Patients' perceptions of written consent: questionnaire study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
On occasions, laws on consent are subject to modification, largely on account of being subject to common law rather than statute-for example, in the UK. Guideline publications such as the UK Department of Health Reference Guide to Consent for Examination or Treatment are intended to provide information for clinicians on when and how to apply current laws in everyday clinical situations. While the extent to which guidelines influence clinician behaviour depends on how much they are read and followed, what is also relevant, and sometimes omitted from consideration, is discussion about underlying philosophical concepts. This paper analyses philosophical weaknesses relating to English laws on consent, the main focus of attention being applied ethics and the rights of adults with incapacity. It draws comparisons between the US and the UK, and advocates changes in English law in order to help rectify weaknesses in patient protection. Discussion includes references to Scottish law, and the use of advance directives, and it voices concerns about over-reliance on "best interests" determinations. The problem is partly one of logical analysis, and what can happen is that best interests determinations fail to show proper respect for adults lacking the capacity to consent to examination or treatment on their own behalf. This is fundamentally a matter of rights, and requires further investigation and appropriate legal remedies in order to respond to ethical deficiencies in English law as it now stands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.