Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Informed Consent and Disclosure of Surgeon Experience

Surgical Ethics: Principles and Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Ethics

  • 803 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews ethical issues and legal precedent relevant to informed consent for surgical procedures using a shared decision-making framework. The process of informed consent is examined in a systematic fashion, including reviewing ways to improve doctor-patient communication and important considerations for documentation of the consent process. Disclosure of surgical experience will also be explored, including the complexities of dealing with statistics from surgeon-specific reports. Ethical principles including respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and distributive justice and duty to tell the truth will be explored as relevant to the doctrine of informed consent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hippocrates of Cos. Hippocrates, Jones WHS, Withington ET, Potter P, Heraclitus of Ephesus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2015: 299–301.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bagwell CE. Respectful Image: Revenge of the Barber Surgeon. Ann Surg. 2005;241:872–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghosh SK. Human cadaveric dissection: a historical account from ancient Greece to the modern era. Anat Cell Biol. 2015;48(3):153–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gawande A. Two Hundred Years of Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1716–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Pellegrini CA. Trust: The Keystone of the Patient-Physician Relationship. J Am Coll Surgeons. 2017;224(2):95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Siegler M. The progression of medicine: from physician paternalism to patient autonomy to bureaucratic parsimony. Arch Int Med. 1985;145:713–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmitz D, Reinacher PC. Informed consent in neurosurgery – translating ethical theory into action. J Med Ethics. 2006;32:497–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schwarze ML, Bradley CT, Brasel KJ. Surgical “buy-in”: The contractual relationship between surgeons and patients that influences decisions regarding life-supporting therapy. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):843–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cocanour CS. Informed consent – it’s more than a signature on a piece of paper. Am J Surg. 2017;214:993–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics, 2nd ed. Irwin T., (transl.) Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aristotle. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Bartlett RC, Collins SD (transl.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ganai S. Disclosure of surgeon experience. World J Surg. 2014;38:1622–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ankuda CK, Block SD, Cooper Z, Correll DJ, Hepner DL, Lasic M, Gawande AA, Bader AM. Measuring critical deficits in shared decision making before elective surgery. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94:328–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Uzzaman MM, Sinha S, Shaygi B, Vitish-sharma P, Loizides S, Myint F. Evaluation of patient’s understanding and recall of the consent process after open inguinal hernia repairs. Int J Surg. 2012;10:5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Scheer AS, O’Connor AM, Chan BP, Moloo H, Poulin EC, Mamazza J, Auer RC, Boushey RP. The myth of informed consent in rectal cancer surgery: what do patients retain? Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:970–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sepucha KR, Fagerlin A, Couper MP, Levin CA, Singer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. How does feeling informed relate to being informed? The DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Mak. 2010;30:77S–84S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hall DE, Morrison P, Nikolajski C, Fine M, Arnold R, Zickmund SL. Informed consent for inguinal herniorrhaphy and cholecystectomy: describing how patients make decisions to have surgery. Am J Surg. 2012;204:619–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Faden RR, Becker C, Lewis C, Freeman J, Faden AI. Disclosure of information to patients in medical care. Med Care. 1981;19:718–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Katz J. Reflections on informed consent: 40 years after its birth. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;186:466–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making— the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:780–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Childers R, Lipsett PA, Pawlik TM. Informed consent and the surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:627–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. American College of Surgeons Statements on Principles. Section IIA. Revised 12 Apr 2016. Accessed at https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/stonprin#iia

  24. Taylor LJ, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, Tucholka JL, Brasel KJ, Johnson SK, Zelenski A, Rathouz PJ, Zhao Q, Kewekkeboum KL, Campbell TC, Schwarze ML. A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions: Best Case/Worst Case. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):531–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, et al. Enhancement of surgical informed consent by addition of repeat back: a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2010;252:27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fink AS, Prochazka AV, Henderson WG, et al. Predictors of comprehension during surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210:919–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wooley S. Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and adolescent Jehovah’s Witnesses: what are their rights? Arch Dis Child. 2005;90:715–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Blake V. Minors’ Refusal of Life-saving Therapies. Virtual Mentor. 2012;14(10):792–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Angelos P, Bedrosian I, Euhus DM, Hermann VM, Katz SJ, Pusic A. Prophylactic mastectomy: Challenging considerations for the surgeon. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(10):3208–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Appelbaum PS. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1834–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Raymont V, Bingley W, Buchanan A, David AS, Hayward P, Wessely S, Hotopf M. Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2004;364:1421–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making health care decisions: a report on the ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship, vol. 1. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Nelson R. Nonbeneficial Treatment and Conflict Resolution: Building Consensus. Perm J. 2013;17:23–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. DuVal G, Clarridge B, Gensler G, Danis M. A national survey of U.S. internists’ experiences with ethical dilemmas and ethics consultation. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19:251–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Johnson v. Kokemoor, 545 NW 2d 495 (Wis. Supreme Court 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Duttry v. Patterson, 771 A.2d 1255 (Pa. Super., 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schneider EC, Lieberman T. Publicly disclosed information about the quality of health care: response of the US public. Qual Health Care. 2001;10:96–103.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Burger I, Schill K, Goodman S. Disclosure of individual surgeon’s performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations. Ann Surg. 2007;245:507–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schwarze ML. The process of informed consent: neither the time nor the place for disclosure of surgeon-specific outcomes. Ann Surg. 2007;245:514–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sade RM, Boan A. Accounting for outcomes: lies, damned lies, and statistics. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153:1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1128–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2117–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Silver N. The signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail – but some don’t. New York: The Penguin Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

Suggested Literature

  • Appelbaum PS. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1834–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  •   A case vignette that provides strategies on how to assess decision-making capacity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childers R, Lipsett PA, Pawlik TM. Informed consent and the surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:627–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •   An overview of ethical requirements for provision of informed consent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrini CA. Trust: The Keystone of the Patient-Physician Relationship. J Am Coll Surgeons. 2017;224(2):95–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •   A framework for communication between patients and physicians that that help establish a bond of trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor LJ, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, Tucholka JL, Brasel KJ, Johnson SK, Zelenski A, Rathouz PJ, Zhao Q, Kewekkeboum KL, Campbell TC, Schwarze ML. A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions: Best Case/Worst Case. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(6):531–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  •   A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Springfield, IL, USA

    Sabha Ganai

Authors
  1. Sabha Ganai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabha Ganai .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Alberto R. Ferreres

Glossary

Best-case/worst-case model

Tool to inform patients of estimates and ranges for outcomes of both a surgical intervention and an alternative in order to help them synthesize a plan in alignment with personal goals and values.

Best interest standard

Process of making healthcare decisions with an intention to minimize harm and maximize benefit to a patient when there is no available surrogate decision-maker to allow for substituted judgment.

Community practice or professional standard

Relies on what other local practitioners deem appropriate for disclosure.

Decision-making capacity

Requires the patient to be able to (1) communicate a choice, (2) understand the relevant information, (3) appreciate the medical consequences of the situation, and (4) reason about the treatment options.

Doctrine of parens patriae

Allows state interference to protect a child’s interests over parental rights to refuse care.

Durable power of attorney for healthcare decisions

Surrogate decision-maker who was previously designated by the patient when they were competent. Takes priority in the hierarchy of possible decision-makers.

Fiduciary duty

Highest standard of care, where a person holds a legal or ethical relationship of trust and responsibility to act on the behalf of another party.

Informed consent

A process of disclosure of risks, benefits, and alternatives of treatment decisions.

Material risk

Risk when a reasonable person, in what the physician knows or should know to be the patient’s position, would be likely to attach significance to the risk or cluster of risks in deciding whether or not to forego the proposed therapy.

Mature minor doctrine

Situation where minors may have common-law rights to refuse medical treatment.

Medical paternalism

Attitude and practice where a physician decides what is best for the patient; may compete with autonomous decision-making by the patient.

Reasonable person standard

Disclosure of what a reasonable patient would want to know under given circumstances.

Repeat-back method

Requires the patient to use their own words to tell you what they understand about the procedure; assesses patient comprehension during informed consent.

Shared decision-making

Framework of doctor-patient relationship requiring (1) the sharing of information between parties, (2) the clinician offering options and then describing their risks and benefits, and (3) the patient expressing his or her preferences and values.

Subjective standard

Rely on risks disclosed that are pertinent to an actual patient’s decision to accept therapy.

Surrogate decision-maker

Has authority to act on behalf of a patient’s previously described wishes and values when a patient lacks decision-making capacity.

Substituted judgment

Process of acting on behalf of a patient’s previously described wishes and values.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ganai, S. (2019). Informed Consent and Disclosure of Surgeon Experience. In: Ferreres, A. (eds) Surgical Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05963-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05964-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation