MeSci
ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
- Messages
- 8,231
- Location
- Cornwall, UK
NEJM article:
Perspective
The Paternalism Preference — Choosing Unshared Decision Making
Lisa Rosenbaum, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2015; 373:589-592 August 13, 2015
The day after 19-year-old Jerry Canterbury underwent surgical laminectomy, he fell out of bed and became paralyzed from the waist down. His neurosurgeon, William Spence, reoperated to relieve pressure on the spinal cord, restoring most motor function. But Canterbury had enduring bowel and bladder dysfunction, necessitating a penile clamp. It was 1959, and though “informed consent” had been mandated for decades, its meaning remained nebulous. Canterbury later sued, claiming Spence hadn't adequately informed him of the risk of paralysis.
Spence argued that he'd followed the community standard for disclosure, and the district court agreed. Nevertheless, the court deciding Canterbury's appeal ruled that “True consent . . . is the informed exercise of a choice, and that entails an opportunity to evaluate knowledgeably the options available and the risks attendant upon each” (Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 1972).
More at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1508418?query=TOC
Perspective
The Paternalism Preference — Choosing Unshared Decision Making
Lisa Rosenbaum, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2015; 373:589-592 August 13, 2015
The day after 19-year-old Jerry Canterbury underwent surgical laminectomy, he fell out of bed and became paralyzed from the waist down. His neurosurgeon, William Spence, reoperated to relieve pressure on the spinal cord, restoring most motor function. But Canterbury had enduring bowel and bladder dysfunction, necessitating a penile clamp. It was 1959, and though “informed consent” had been mandated for decades, its meaning remained nebulous. Canterbury later sued, claiming Spence hadn't adequately informed him of the risk of paralysis.
Spence argued that he'd followed the community standard for disclosure, and the district court agreed. Nevertheless, the court deciding Canterbury's appeal ruled that “True consent . . . is the informed exercise of a choice, and that entails an opportunity to evaluate knowledgeably the options available and the risks attendant upon each” (Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 1972).
More at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1508418?query=TOC