Abstract
The goal of the informed consent process is intended to lead either the patient or the research subject to make an informed (educated) and voluntary choice. That is to choose whether or not to have a particular clinical treatment/operation or whether or not to choose to participate in a research study that may or may not be of specific benefit to him or her. The goal of this chapter is to review the now well-defined informed consent process for both clinical treatment and research involving human subjects and then examine the process in the context of clinical surgical innovation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Grimm DA. Informed consent for all! No exceptions. New Mexico Law Rev. 2007;37:39–83.
The Nuremberg Code, U.S. National Institutes of Health, Office of Human Subjects Research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/nurcode.html
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (revised October 2013). http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/
The Belmont Report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
McKneally MF. Ethical problems in surgery: innovations leading to unforeseen complication. World J Surg. 1999;23:786–8.
Riskin DL, Longaker MT, Gertner M, Krummel TM. Innovation in surgery: a historical perspective. Ann Surg. 2006;244:686–93.
Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089–96.
Reitsma RA, Moreno JD. Ethical regulation for innovative surgery: the last frontier? J Am Coll Surg. 2002;194:792–801.
Reitsma RA, Moreno JD. Ethics of innovative surgery: US surgeons’ definitions, knowledge, and attitudes. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;200:103–10.
Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Karpowicz L, Racine E. Disclosure, consent, and the exercise of patient autonomy in surgical innovation: a systematic content analysis of the conceptual literature. Account Res. 2014;21:331–52.
Lantos JD. The “inclusion benefit” in clinical trials. J Pediatr. 1999;134:130–1.
Ivy EJ, Lorenc PZ, Aston SJ. Is there a difference? A prospective study comparing lateral and standard SMAS face lifts with extended SMAS and composite rhydectomies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996;98:1135–43.
Fost N. Ethical dilemmas in medical innovation and research: distinguishing experimentation from practice. Semin Perinatol. 1998;22:223–32.
Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:1204–9.
Lee Char SJ, Hills NK, Lo B, Kirkwood KS. Informed consent for innovative surgery: a survey of patients and surgeons. Surgery. 2013;153:473–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sillin, L.F., Rawlings, A.L., Shadduck, P.P. (2016). Informed Consent and Surgical Innovation. In: Stain, S., Pryor, A., Shadduck, P. (eds) The SAGES Manual Ethics of Surgical Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27663-2_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27661-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27663-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)