China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Informed Consent
Published in Julie Dickinson, Anne Meyer, Karen J. Huff, Deborah A. Wipf, Elizabeth K. Zorn, Kathy G. Ferrell, Lisa Mancuso, Marjorie Berg Pugatch, Joanne Walker, Karen Wilkinson, Legal Nurse Consulting Principles and Practices, 2019
Karen Wilkinson, Deborah A. Wipf, Elena Capella
If an HCP has made all reasonable attempts to educate and inform the patient about a treatment or procedure and why it is being recommended, and the patient still refuses, the HCP must ensure every reasonable explanation was provided for the patient to make an informed decision and then document the patient’s informed refusal. The informed refusal process, and documentation thereof, should include:An explanation of the risks involved in not having the treatment or procedure andA determination of the patient’s capacity to refuse based on having all the facts necessary to make an informed decision When care is refused, healthcare facilities typically have crafted forms for patients and families to sign and drafted policies for the HCP to follow based on state statutes. The patient’s ability to refuse treatment can be challenged, and the HCP can attempt to prove the patient is not competent to make decisions.
8 Child Protection
Published in Judith Hendrick, Child Care Law for Health Professionals, 2018
As with similar provisions elsewhere in the Act (for example, interim care and supervision orders) the Act specifically states that ‘Gillick competent’ children under 16 of ‘sufficient understanding to make an informed decision’ can refuse to submit to a medical or psychiatric examination or other assessment. Competent children over 16 also have this right of informed refusal.
Informed consent
Published in Paul Lambden, Dental Law and Ethics, 2018
Third, it implies that the provision of information is simply to obtain the patient’s agreement to go ahead with the proposed treatment. This is not so because the doctrine is broader than merely agreeing to treatment. The provision of information is a necessary ingredient in the patient’s decisionmaking process. From this perspective, ‘informed consent’ is about enabling choices in recognition of a patient’s right to self-determination. If, following the provision of information about proposed treatment, a patient chooses to go ahead then he or she will have given an ‘informed consent’; conversely, if the choice made is to decline, he or she will have made an ‘informed refusal’. Whatever the decision, it will have been his or her ‘informed choice’.
Why Dax’s Case Still Matters
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2019
Kayhan Parsi, William J. Winslade
After nearly 50 years, the case of Dax Cowart still engages ethicists, lawyers, health professionals, students, and the general public. Why? Dax Cowart, who died of cancer on April 28, 2019, at the age of 71, became a stalwart champion of personal autonomy after his experience as a burn patient who unsuccessfully refused treatment in the early 1970s. The doctrine of informed consent was already fairly well developed by then. But what about the concept of informed refusal? Dax was clearly competent and had decision-making capacity, despite the views of his physicians. We now view this as an axiomatic truth in bioethics—that a patient who has decision-making capacity has the legal and ethical right to refuse any and all treatment, even lifesaving treatment. Yet, this seemed like a radical notion to some in the early 1970s.
Getting comfortable with “comfort feeding”: An exploration of legal and ethical aspects of the Australian speech-language pathologist’s role in palliative dysphagia care
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2018
Katherine Kelly, Steven Cumming, Belinda Kenny, Jennifer Smith-Merry, Hans Bogaardt
Treating medical teams, including SLPs, have a legal duty to inform patients of all possible dysphagia assessment and treatment options (including no treatment) and associated consequences (Stewart et al., 2008). Generally, formal or full consent in a medical context usually involves signature of a written document that outlines the risks and benefits of what is being proposed (Sharp & Bryant, 2003). Such documents are useful, but they may not satisfy the requirements of informed consent if evidence of appropriate provision of information and discussion does not exist (Sharp & Bryant, 2003). It is essential that time is taken to ensure that all options and possible outcomes of healthcare decisions are understood, and that there has been ample opportunity for clarification (Sharp & Brady Wagner, 2007; Sharp & Bryant, 2003). It is appropriate if this needs to occur over more than a single clinical contact (Clark & Phillips, 2010; Clark, Raijmakers, Allan, van Zuylen, & van der Heide, 2017). The essential criteria for informed consent that must be satisfied are outlined in Table II. Verbal consent must also satisfy the same criteria. Properly informed consent must also acknowledge that patients can make an informed refusal, of both information and treatment (Kerridge et al., 2013; Stewart et al., 2008). It is also important for SLPs to also be aware that assent or tacit/implied/presumed consent, which is implied by a person’s participation in an assessment or treatment activity, may not meet the requirements for informed consent (Sharp & Brady Wagner, 2007; Sharp & Bryant, 2003).
Three Kinds of Decision-Making Capacity for Refusing Medical Interventions
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2022
Mark Christopher Navin, Abram L. Brummett, Jason Adam Wasserman
We can say something similar about informed, goals-based refusals of medical treatment: A patient does not have to know any details about potential treatments—and they do not need to understand, appreciate, or reason about the relationship between each of those individual interventions—in order to make an informed refusal. They need only to know that those interventions are inconsistent with at least one of their overriding goals. While choosing celibacy seems likely to be less consequential than choosing to die, the importance of the analogy is to highlight that a very consequential choice to refuse an entire set of options can, in both cases, be based on a commitment to an overriding goal.