Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17 (4):789-792 (2020)

Authors
Emma Cave
Durham University
Abstract
In the United Kingdom, the question of how much information is required to be given to patients about the benefits and risks of proposed treatment remains extant. Issues about whether healthcare resources can accommodate extended shared decision-making processes are yet to be resolved. COVID-19 has now stepped into this arena of uncertainty, adding more complexity. U.K. public health responses to the pandemic raise important questions about professional standards regarding how the obtaining and recording of consent might change or be maintained in such emergency conditions, particularly in settings where equipment, medicines, and appropriately trained or specialized staff are in short supply. Such conditions have important implications for the professional capacity and knowledge available to discuss the risks and benefits of and alternatives to proposed treatment with patients. The government’s drive to expedite the recruitment to wards of medical students nearing the end of their studies, as well as inviting retired practitioners back into practice, raises questions about the ability of such healthcare providers to engage fully in shared decision-making.This article explores whether the legal duty on healthcare practitioners to disclose the material risks of a proposed medical treatment to a patient should be upheld during pandemic conditions or whether the pre-eminence of patient autonomy should be partly sacrificed in such exceptional circumstances. We argue that measures to protect public health and to respect autonomous decision-making are not mutually exclusive and that there are good reasons to maintain professional standards in obtaining consent to treatment even during acute pressures on public health systems.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11673-020-10048-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,194
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Providing Health Care to Patients Against Their Will.Matthew Heffron - 2013 - The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 13 (3):483-498.
Health Care Workers with Hiv and a Patient's Right to Know.Timothy F. Murphy - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (6):553-569.
A Suggested Change In The Informed Consent Procedure.Amnon Goldworth - 2010 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (2):258-260.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-11-09

Total views
3 ( #1,321,254 of 2,448,320 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #450,727 of 2,448,320 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes