Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (3):157-161 (2001)
Objectives—To assess perceptions of the informed consent process in patients undergoing urgent abdominal surgery.Design—A prospective observational study was carried out using structured questionnaire-based interviews. Patients who had undergone urgent abdominal surgery were interviewed in the postoperative period to ascertain their perceptions of the informed consent process. Replies were compared to responses obtained from a control group undergoing elective surgery, to identify factors common to the surgical process and those specific to urgent surgery. Patients' perceptions of received information were also compared to the information perceived to have been provided by the consent obtainers. Setting—Gastrointestinal surgical service of a university teaching hospital.Patients—Seventy-four consecutive patients undergoing urgent abdominal surgery and 80 control patients undergoing elective surgery. Main measurements—Principal outcome measures were patients' perceptions of factors interfering with the ability to give informed consent, assessment of the quality of informed consent and the degree of discussion of the expected outcomes. Results—Forty-nine of the seventy-four (66%) patients undergoing urgent surgery perceived that pain did not affect their ability to give informed consent. Twenty-seven reported an adverse effect of analgesia on the ability to give informed consent. Only 22% of patients undergoing urgent surgery perceived that there had been any discussion of potential side effects and complications of surgery. Conclusion–The majority of patients in this series with acute intra-abdominal surgical conditions perceive that they retain the ability to give informed consent for surgery. There is a need for improved discussion of therapeutic options and likely outcomes
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Participants' Understanding of the Process of Psychological Research: Informed Consent.Janet L. Brody, John P. Cluck & Alfredo S. Aragon - 1997 - Ethics and Behavior 7 (4):285 – 298.
Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice.Deborah Bowman - 2011 - Cambridge University Press.
Hide-and-Seek or Show-and-Tell? Emerging Issues of Informed Consent.Leonard J. Haas - 1991 - Ethics and Behavior 1 (3):175 – 189.
Enhancing Clinician Provision of Informed Consent and Counseling: Some Pedagogical Strategies.Stephen Wear - 1999 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (1):34 – 42.
Consent and Informational Responsibility.Shaun D. Pattinson - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (3):176-179.
Sham Surgery: An Ethical Analysis.Franklin G. Miller - 2004 - Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1):41-48.
Local Attitudes, Moral Obligation, Customary Obedience and Other Cultural Practices: Their Influence on the Process of Gaining Informed Consent for Surgery in a Tertiary Institution in a Developing Country.David O. Irabor & Peter Omonzejele - 2009 - Developing World Bioethics 9 (1):34-42.
Prescribing Placebos Ethically: The Appeal of Negatively Informed Consent.David Shaw - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):97-99.
"There Is No Evidence to Suggest...": Changing the Way We Judge Information for Disclosure in the Informed Consent Process.Leslie Cannold - 1997 - Hypatia 12 (2):165 - 184.
On Taylor's Justification of Medical Informed Consent.Jukka Varelius - 2012 - Bioethics 26 (4):207-214.
Effectively Obtaining Informed Consent for Child and Adolescent Participation in Mental Health Research.Benedetto Vitiello - 2008 - Ethics and Behavior 18 (2 & 3):182 – 198.
Equity Under the Knife: Justice and Evidence in Surgery.Wendy Rogers, Christopher Degeling & Cynthia Townley - 2014 - Bioethics 28 (3):119-126.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads108 ( #45,634 of 2,164,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,039 of 2,164,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?