Consent sounds like a laborious process that requires much time. Actually discussing a procedure or exam with a patient doesn’t take much more time than it took to read this paragraph.
Physicians make patients aware of those interventions that they (the patients) may then refuse. In short, informed consent is less about patient decisions than it is about restraining physicians.
Consideration of what constitutes sufficient information about how donation protocols can interfere with a patient’s dying process is a key feature of consent processes.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(8):E708-716. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.708.
Nicole Martinez-Martin, JD, PhD, Laura B. Dunn, MD, and Laura Weiss Roberts, MD, MA
Calibrating a machine learning model with data from a local setting is key to predicting psychosis outcomes. Clinicians also need to understand an algorithm’s limitations and disclose clinically and ethically relevant information to patients.
AMA J Ethics. 2018; 20(9):E804-811. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.804.
Dr Matthew C. Bobel joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article, coauthored with Dr Robert K. Cleary: “How Should Risk Be Communicated to Patients When Developing Resident Surgeon Robotic Skills?”
The physician must consider the potential benefits of the new procedure and then determine, through discussion with the patient, what value the patient places on those specific benefits.
Health care professionals’ use of social media can pose ethical challenges related to the boundary between professional and personal identities, privacy, confidentiality, and the trustworthiness of health care professionals.
AMA J Ethics. 2015; 17(11):1009-1018. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.11.peer1-1511.
Allan B. Peetz, MD, Nicholas Sadovnikoff, MD, and Michael F. O’Connor, MD
Because of their serious medical conditions and the nature of the treatments, patients who are candidates for extracorporeal life support may not be able to give properly informed consent for the treatment.
AMA J Ethics. 2015; 17(3):236-242. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.3.stas1-1503