Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why the goals of informed consent are not realized

Treatise on informed consent for the primary care physician

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 127, 129, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914).

  2. Veatch RM. The patient as partner: a theory of human-experimentation ethics. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987;44–45.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560, 317 P.2d 170 (1957).

  4. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986;298–336.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lidz CW, Meisel A, Osterweis M, et al. Barriers to informed consent. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:539–43.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. See, e.g., Canada Supreme Court cases:Reibl v. Hughes [1980] 2 S.C.R. 880;Hopp v. Lepp, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 192.

  7. Andrews LB. Informed consent statutes and the decisionmaking process. J Legal Med 1984;5:163–217.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. See, e.g., Cal. Health & Safety Code 1704.5 (West 1980); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 111, 70E (West 1979).

  9. See, e.g.,Pratt v. Davis, 224 Ill. 300, 79 N.E. 562 (1906).

  10. See cases collected in Annot., 56 A.L.R.2d 695, 697–699 (1957); court discussions of informed consent as a battery can be found even in 1970. e.g.,Dow v. Kaiser Foundation, 12 Cal. App. 3d 488, 90 Cal. Rptr. 747 (1970).

  11. Tietz GF. Informed consent in the prescription drug context: the special case. Wash Law Rev 1986;61:367–417.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Katz J. Informed consent—a fairy tale? Law’s vision. Univ Pittsburgh Law Rev 1977;39:137–74.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See, e.g.,Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 at 786.

  14. Annas GJ. Why the British courts rejected the American doctrine of informed consent. Am J Public Health 1984;74:1286. See also the following English Cases:Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, [1957] 1 WLR 582;Sidaway v. Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and others [1985] 1 All ER 643.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Picard EI. The tempest of informed consent. In Klar L, ed.Studies in Canadian Tort Law (2nd ed). Toronto: Butterworths, 1977;135.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972).

  17. See, e.g., Seidelson D: Medical malpractice: informed consent cases in “full disclosure” jurisdictions. Duquesne Law Rev 1976; 14:309.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rodgers-Magnet S: Recent developments in the doctrine of informed consent to medical treatment. Canadian Cases on the Law of Torts 1980;14:61–80.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1980).

  20. Arena v. Gingrich, 733 P.2d 75 (Oregon Appeals 1987).

  21. Meisel A. The “exceptions” to the informed consent doctrine: striking a balance between competing values in medical decisionmaking. Wis Law Rev 1979;413–88, see especially page 427, footnote 61.

  22. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making health care decisions. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982: volumes 2 and 3.

  23. Alfidi RJ. Informed consent: a study of patient reactions. JAMA 1971;216:1325–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Morris LA, Mazis M, Gordon E. A survey of the effects of oral contraceptive patient information. JAMA 1977;238:2504–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Roling GT, Pressgrove LW, Keeffe EB, Raffin SB. An appraisal of patients’ reactions to “informed consent” for peroral endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1977;24:69–70.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;47:263–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychologist 1984;39:341–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC, Tversky A. On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N Engl J Med 1982;306:1259–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Mountain CT. The relationship of prognosis to morphology and the anatomic extent of disease: studies of a new clinical staging system. In: Israel L, Chahinian AP, eds. Lung cancer: natural history, prognosis, and therapy. New York: Academic Press, 1976;107–40.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mountain CF, Carr DT, Anderson WAD: A system for clinical staging of lung cancer. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1974;120:130–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hilton G. Present position relating to cancer of the lung: results with radiotherapy alone. Thorax 1960;15:17–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Nakao MA, Axelrod S. Numbers are better than words. Am J Med 1983;74:1061–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kong A, Barnett GO, Mosteller F, Youtz C. How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability. N Engl J Med 1986;315:740–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychol 1973;5:207–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Fischhoff B. For those condemned to study the past: heuristics and biases in hindsight. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A, eds. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fischhoff B, Beyth R. “I knew it would happen”—remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizational Behav Hum Perform 1975;13:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Fischhoff B. Perceived informativeness of facts. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1977;3:349–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. Ann. 768.46(2) (West Supp. 1983): Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, 1909(c) (1) (Supp. 1983): Utah Code Ann. 78-14-5(1)(3) (1977).

  42. See, e.g., Note, Harvard Law Rev 1962;75:1445–8; Comment, Informed consent in medical malpractice, Calif Law Rev 1967;55:1396, 1409–10;Scott v. Wilson, 396 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965), aff’d, 412 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. 1967).

  43. Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal. 3d 285; 165 Cal. Rptr. 308, 611 P.2d 902 (1980). See the minority opinion by Judge Clark, 27 Cal. 3d 285, especially at 297–299.

  44. Gutheil TG, Bursztajn H, Brodsky A. Malpractice prevention through the sharing of uncertainty: informed consent and the therapeutic alliance. N Engl J Med 1984;311:49–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Katz J. The silent world of doctor and patient. New York: Free Press, 1984;57–8, 94–5.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Levinson D. A guide to the clinical interview. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1987;172–3.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bursztajn H, Feinbloom RI, Hamm RM, Brodsky A. Medical choices, medical chances: how patients, families, and physicians can cope with uncertainty. New York: Delacorte Press, 1981;56.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Cassell EJ. Talking with patients. Volume 1: The theory of doctor—patient communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985;66–114, 194–207.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;18:221; Grundner TM. On the readability of surgical consent forms. N Engl J Med 1980;302:900–2; Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? JAMA 1980;244:56–8; Baker MT, Taub HA. Readability of informed consent forms for research in Veterans Administration Medical Center. JAMA 1983;250:2646–8.

  50. Hunt EB, MacLeod CM: Cognition and information processing in patient and physician. In: Stone GC, Cohen F, Adler NE, eds. Health psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979;303–32.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986;319.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Meisel A. Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987;138–139.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Føllesdal D: Risk: philosophical and ethical aspects. In: Brögger A, Oftedal P, eds. Risk and reason: risk assessment in relation to environmental mutagens and carcinogens. Prog Clin Biol Res 1986;208:41–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mazur DJ. What should patients be told prior to a medical procedure? Ethical and legal perspectives on medical informed consent. Am J Med 1986;81:1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Krumins PE, Fihn SD, Kent DL. Symptom severity and patients’ values in the decision to perform a transurethral resection of the prostate. Med Decis Making 1988;8:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Loomes G, Sugden R. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic J 1982;92:805–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker PJH. Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci 1982;28:936–54.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Hershey JC, Schoemaker PJH. Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent? Management Sci 1985;31:1213–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lidz CW, Meisel A, Zerubavel E, Carter M, Sestak RM, Roth LH. Informed consent: a study of decisionmaking in psychiatry. New York: Guilford Press, 1984; chapter 15;287–307.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Strull WM, Lo B, Charles G. Do patients want to participate in medical decision making? JAMA 1984;252:2990–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Sutherland HJ, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Lockwood G, et al. Why do patients seek information (abstr). Med Decis Making 1987;7:289.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See, e.g., Waitzkin H: Doctor - patient communication: clinical implications of social scientific research. JAMA 1984;252:2441–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VA Medical Center (11-C), 3710 SW US Veterans Hospital Road, P.O. Box 1034, 97207, Portland, OR

    Dennis J. Mazur MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Dennis J. Mazur MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Received from the Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon.

Dr. Mazur was a Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Fellow in General Internal Medicine at Stanford University during part of the research for this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mazur, D.J. Why the goals of informed consent are not realized. J Gen Intern Med 3, 370–380 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02595796

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02595796

Keywords

Search

Navigation