Informed Consent

In their article, “The Concept of Informed Consent,” Faden and Beauchamp give two varying definitions of informed consent, namely sense one and sense two. Sense one is defined as autonomous authorization, meaning that the patient or subject agrees and then gives authority to move forward with a proposal (Vaughn 191). The authors give four conditions that have to be met for informed consent to be recognized: the patient has to understand the information presented to her, there should be no manipulation or coercion, and she has to intentionally give her authorization (Vaughn 191). Faden and Beauchamp also note that the fourth condition, where the patient gives her authorization, is pivotal in this sense since it differentiates autonomous authorization

Informed consent is the basis for all legal and moral aspects of a patient’s autonomy. Implied consent is when you and your physician interact in which the consent is assumed, such as in a physical exam by your doctor. Written consent is a more extensive form in which it mostly applies when there is testing or experiments involved over a period of time. The long process is making sure the patient properly understands the risk and benefits that could possible happen during and after the treatment. As a physician, he must respect the patient’s autonomy. For a patient to be an autonomous agent, he must have legitimate moral values. The patient has all the rights to his medical health and conditions that arise. When considering informed

Another issue with the implementation of Informed consent arises when the patient waives the right to Informed consent and leaves the right to make the decision on the physician. Though legally correct, this can cause psychological stress for the physician especially when the decision is about a life threatening medical condition. Moreover, this also makes the patient vulnerable to abuse. (Manthous, DeGirolamo, 2003)

Patient informed consent refers to the situation where the patient is fully informed on the consequences of their health care decision after which the patient gives the decision. For there to be informed consent, there are five elements that must be discussed. The first is the nature of the patient's decision then the applicable alternatives to the proposed intervention. Third are the risks, benefits and uncertainties associated with each of the alternatives. Fourth is the assessment of the patient's understanding and last is the acceptance of the intervention or an alternative by the patient. Before the patient's consent is considered to be valid, the patient's competency to make the decision must be addressed. The criteria for evaluating the patient's competency is clearly stated in section 3 of the 2005 Mental Capacity Act which states that provided the person is able to understand, retain and use information provided and to communicate their decision in any way such as talking or sign language, they are competent to make a decision. If a patient is treated against their refusal to consent, it amounts to the tort of battery or can also be considered the crime of assault. In addition to this, laws that touch on human rights reinforce the importance of the protection of the physical integrity of the individual in terms of their right to respect of their private life. Therefore, refusal of medical treatment is a human right.

As per Beal & Lewis, 2014 Informed consent is a process of education and the correct education is a key to the ability to provide consent.

Obtaining an informed consent is a vital part of current health care. This document lists out several key pieces of information for both the patient, Provider, and the ancillary staff that also access the document during the procedure process. However, obtaining informed consent has not always been the practice norm and in research, informed consent carries different specifications.

A common factor researchers are aware on to carry their study is informed consent. It can be agreed upon the remark that, further action on continuing a proposal without this step is not approved. In the play write, Informed Consent by Deborah Zoe Laufer, the Arizona State University study on the Havasupai tribe is depicted, and shows that their research found more than enough data from a sampling of the Havasupai tribe's blood. The research was said to be focused on the cause of the tribe's vast case of diabetes type two. Consent was a main issue on how the research was carried, that made the outcome of the research unethical. The character Jillian was shown to be in charge of the conduction of the study process, making missteps

In this case, the night of January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan was driving a car and lost control of her car as she traveled down Elm Road in Jasper County, Missouri. The car overturned, and Nancy Cruzan was discovered lying face down in a ditch without detectable respiratory and cardiac function. Paramedics were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat at the accident site and she was transported to a hospital in an unconscious state. Then neurosurgeon diagnosed her and found that she is having sustained probable cerebral contusions compounded by significant anoxia (lack of oxygen). The Missouri trial court found that permanent brain damage generally results after 6 minutes in an anoxic state and Nancy was in this stage for 12 to 14 minutes.

The U.S. Healthcare System continues to evolve and develop delivery strategies of affordable high-quality health services to all individuals. Striving to make available superior advances in U.S. health, healthcare providers delivery options, solutions and/or treatments for the American populace.

The standard of care is the attention you would give to any one of your patients in similar situations. A patient’s best interest is the only one to be considered. An appropriate standard of care would be reached in this case study if you would treat her emergency situation as you would any other, regardless of circumstance and act on that accordingly. There should be no favoritism of judgment in your standard of care. (Caldwell & Connor, 2012, pg. 27).

According to According to (Gerald, Corey, Schneider, & Callanan, 2015) “Informed consent involves the right of clients to be informed about their therapy and to make autonomous decisions pertaining to it” (p.154). Section B of the ASCA National standards for School Counselors states “Recognize that providing services to minors in a school setting requires school counselors to collaborate with students’ parents/ guardians as appropriate” (pg.6). Since I will be working in the school system. I have to be aware that parents and guardians are heavily involved with the student’s school counseling experience.

They have a duty and a legal responsibility to give the whole truth, receive informed consent, and be bound by primary duty. Each patient has the right to exercise control over his or her own body. The need to receive all the information available is extremely important to be fully informed of their current state and know all the options they have, this way they are able to be in agreement with their physician and give them the proper permission for what they are asking of them. The only way for this to happen is to have the patient be fully informed by having the physician give the whole truth. The physician is an expert and needs to be able to explain all the information to the patient since the patient is in an inferior position than the physician. The patient relies on them to give them the whole truth and provide alternative courses of action in a neutral fashion. The physician is also bound by primary duty to the patient which means that they cannot put anyone else’s good over the good of their

“Respect for human beings involves giving due scope to peoples capacity to make their own decisions. In the research context, this normally requires that participation be the result of a choice made by the participants” (NHMR, 2007, p.3).  Freegard 2012 (p.60), states that “respecting the rights of others,” includes a responsibility for Health professionals “to let others know about their rights” and that this forms the basis of an informed consent.

In modern medicine, informed consent is a principal factor considered when treating patients. In the past, informed consent was not the fundamental requirement that it is today, because patients were viewed as objects for research, not as whole persons (Jewson, 1976, p. 235). Consequently, when wartime anxieties amplified the desire to advance scientific research, minorities were targeted as suitable objects for this research as a result of pre-existent prejudices, which justified human experimentation (Baader, et al., 2005, pp. 229-230). Over time, nonconsensual practice has come to be seen as unacceptable following the emergence of the Nuremberg Code, patient activism, and official medical reforms.

Yeo (2010) point out that the possibility to retain some information from patients has been ordered for long in Australian law, as in other countries for the benefit of the patient. This has now been combined with the greater autonomy acknowledged to the patient in many jurisdictions. Although a clinical approach reveals that loyalty should guide the patient-physician relationship, there are still some situations in which information consent and truth telling may be controversial: in some circumstances, the physician should or may not tell the truth. The case at hand poses a dilemma regarding the right to know (Cherry & Jacob 2008).