Advertisement

HEC Forum

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 64–81 | Cite as

Informed Consent Law, Ethics, and Practice: From Infancy to Reflective Adolescence

  • Roberta M. Berry
Article

Keywords

Inform Consent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schloendorff v. The Society of the New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faden R and Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engelhardt HT Jr. The foundations of bioethics, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolf SM. Toward a systematic theory of informed consent in managed care. Houston Law Review. 1999; 35: 1631–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krause JH. Reconceptualizing informed consent in an era of health care cost containment. Iowa Law Review. 1999; 85: 261–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper EB. Testing for genetic traits: The need for a new legal doctrine of informed consent. Maryland Law Review. 1999; 58: 346–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurtz SF. The law of informed consent: From ‘doctor is right’ to ‘patient has rights.’ Syracuse Law Review. 2000; 50: 1243.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Capron AM. The once and future silent world. Foreword to The silent world of doctor and patient, by Jay Katz. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katz J. The silent world of doctor and patient. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schuck PH. Rethinking informed consent. Yale Law Journal. 1994; 103: 899–959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wear S. Informed consent: Patient autonomy and clinician beneficence within health care, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Natanson v. Kline, 350 P.2d 1093 (Kan. 1960).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: Patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jonsen AR. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beauchamp TL and Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morreim EH. Balancing act: The new medical ethics of medicine’s new economics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hall MA. Law, medicine, and trust. Stanford Law Review. 2002; 55: 463–527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sulmasy DP. Informed consent without autonomy. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2002; 30: 207–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cohen MH and Ruggie MC. Integrating complementary and alternative medical therapies in conventional medical settings: Legal quandaries and potential policy models. University of Cincinnati Law Review. 2003; 72: 671–728.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gatter R. Walking the talk of trust in human subjects research: The challenge of regulating financial conflicts of interest. Emory Law Journal. 2003; 52: 327–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Koski G. Research, regulations, and responsibility: Confronting the compliance myth — a reaction to professor Gatter. Emory Law Journal. 2003; 52: 403–416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benbow S. Conflict of interest: Financial incentives and informed consent in human subject research. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. 2003; 17: 181–215.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldner JA. Dealing with conflicts of interest in biomedical research: IRB oversight as the next best solution to the abolitionist approach. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2000; 28: 379–404.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuszler PC. Curing conflicts of interest in clinical research: Impossible dreams and harsh realities. Widener Law Symposium. 2001; 8: 115–152.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hall MA. A theory of economic informed consent. Georgia Law Review. 1997; 31: 511–526.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hall TS. Bargaining with Hippocrates: Managed care and the doctor-patient relationship. South Carolina Law Review. 2003; 54: 689–740.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenfeld B. The psychology of competence and informed consent: Understanding decision-making with regard to clinical research. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2002; 30: 173–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gatter R. Informed consent law and the forgotten duty of physician inquiry. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 2000; 31: 557–597.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hartman RG. Adolescent decisional autonomy for medical care: Physician perceptions and practices. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable. 2001; 8: 87–134.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fisher CB. A goodness-of-fit ethic for informed consent. Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2002; 30: 159–171.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ali V. Consent forms as part of the informed consent process: Moving away from ‘medical Miranda.’ Hastings Law Journal. 2003; 54: 1575–1591.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ziker D. Reviving informed consent: Using risk perception in clinical trials. Duke Law & Technology Review. 2003; 15.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosoffs AJ. Informed consent in the electronic age. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 1999; 25: 367.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brensilver P. E-formed consent: Evaluating the interplay between interactive technology and informed consent. George Washington Law Review. 2002; 70: 613–631.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heinemann RA. Pushing the limits of informed consent: Johnson v. Kokemoor and physician-specific disclosure. Wisconsin Law Review. 1997; 1079–1081.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberta M. Berry

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations