QSHC

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Doyal, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Doyal, L
Topic Collections
Right arrowRelevant Article
Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:414-415
© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute for Healthcare Improvement


COMMENTARY

Informed consent

Informed consent: don’t throw out the moral baby with the critical bath water

L Doyal

Correspondence to:
Professor L Doyal
Department of Medical Ethics, Queen Mary, University of London, London E1 2AD, UK; l.doyal@qmul.ac.uk


Informed consent is one of the most important bricks in the edifice of "right" medical treatment, but low standards must be recognised and corrected

Keywords: patient consent; doctor-patient relationship; patients’ views; informed consent

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

It is well over two decades since Ian Kennedy published "Unmasking Medicine" based on his Reith lectures.1 He launched an inspired attack on medical paternalism in the UK which in many important respects has now been won—at least in principle. Clinical practice is now expected to embody the duty both to protect life and health and to respect individual autonomy—the right of competent patients to make informed choices about their medical options. Indeed, it is now both legally and professionally clear that, when these two duties are in conflict, the latter trumps the former. Ultimately, the competent adult patient has the final say about whether or not to accept or reject proposed treatment, even when refusing may mean death.

There is now a well articulated body of statute and case law designed to reinforce the right of patients to consent to or refuse treatment on the . . . [Full text of this article]


Relevant Article

Women’s accounts of consenting to surgery: is consent a quality problem?
M Habiba, C Jackson, A Akkad, S Kenyon, and M Dixon-Woods
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2004 13: 422-427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2004 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.