Why Britain Can't Afford Informed Consent

Hastings Center Report 15 (4):19-25 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the case of Mrs. Amy Sidaway, the House of Lords has rejected the “American” legal doctrine of informed consent, which is based on patients' rights, in favor of a standard based on the obligations of the reasonable physician. The British National Health Service, with centralized planning, prospective funding, and limited resources, is unlikely to provide a safe harbor for a doctrine based on individual choice in health care.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,607

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy.Robert Young - 1998 - In Helga Kuhse & Peter Singer (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics. Malden, Mass., USA: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 530–540.
Making Health Care Decisions: A Report on the Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient—Practitioner Relationship.United States - 1982 - President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research for Sale by the Supt. Of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.
Informed Consent, Autonomy, and the Law.David B. Annis - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:249-259.
Avoiding Surprises: A Model for Informing Patients.Heather J. Gert - 2002 - Hastings Center Report 32 (5):23-32.
Free Choice and Patient Best Interests.Emma C. Bullock - 2016 - Health Care Analysis 24 (4):374-392.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-22

Downloads
43 (#511,356)

6 months
7 (#673,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Robert Schwartz
University of Abertay Dundee

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references