Class Notes (839,116)
Canada (511,194)
Philosophy (540)
PHL283H5 (40)
Lecture

PHL283 Feb 3 2011

6 Pages
126 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL283H5
Professor
Jonathan Peterson

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Description
PHL283 February 3 rd Informed Consent - informed consent o why is it important? What interest does it serve? - Hippocratic oath – doctor knows what to do, the patient is not the expert o patient has a submission to the doctor’s judgements – doctors have an obligation to provide the best treatment that they can - now, informed consent has become a fundamental part of what’s appropriate about medical care - but, physicians have: (against the idea that informed consent is important) – its not necessary because… o 1. doctors have years of expertise o 2. the patients are feeling anxiety, pain o 3. commitment to putting the good of others first – not advance their own interests – adequate safeguard against abuse - so how can we defend informed consent – why is it important? o 1. the right to autonomy – nobody can do something to you unless you consent to you – but why does it support the idea that the consent has to be INFORMED – why is information important, why is a requirement of autonomy? o 2. safeguarding the well-being of the patient – it’s true that we can count on the physicians to be altruistic towards patients, but its not a bad thing to have another layer of protection – and the physician doesn’t always know what your values are 1. develop a concept of informed consent 2. is it an ideal that we can achieve? 3. models of informed consent – different ways of understanding what this ideal requires – what counts as an adequate disclosure? 4. J.W and informed consent 1. - what does the model of informed consent look like? - people have to be able to consent to things going on that involve them - what exactly do we mean when we say “informed consent” - in informed consent, what should the patient know? o the risks of the procedures, probability of risks o other alternatives o benefits o do they want that procedure in the first place o walk them through the procedure – what are they consenting to? - certain types of information that the physician must disclose to the patient - what would it take for a person to refuse treatment under informed consent Faden and Beauchamp - autonomous authorization o a particular action that a patient does to authorize a medical personnel o or when a research patient authorizes the “scientists” - what it cant be – o agreeing to go along with something o ex. Dax’s mother – had to sign the forms – had to go along with what the doctors say o can’t be submitting to someone’s will – can’t go along with someone else o not a submission to the will of the doctor - authorization: o involves a transfer of authority  have to understand what you’re doing – have to be intending to do that  otherwise, true consent is not there - also intend to assume responsibility to what the doctor does - what kinds of things have to be in place – what are the conditions? What is required if you’re going to autonomously authorize someone? o 1. standard of competence – able to understand the risks/benefits – how things connect to your values – relate what’s going on to your goals – has the capacity to understand o 2. adequate disclosure of information – tell them the risks/alternatives/benefits/results of refusal o 3. patient has to understand the information – otherwise the consent is not informed – has to actually understand o 4. decision made by the patient has to be voluntary – patient should not be subject to coercion or undue manipulation o 5. the act of consent or refusal 2. - is informed consent an achievable ideal? - 2 notions of informed consent out there – 1. autonomous authorization – you are thinking about the patient and their condition 2. effective consent o legally effective authorization – the institutional/legal requirements that are in place that tell you what counts as consent to a procedure o the paperwork that is needed to do o not thinking about the autonomy of the patient, rather regulating their behaviour – complies with the rules of obtaining consent o rules requiring signatures, witnesses, how much information should be disclosed, the capacity of the patient’s autonomy to give consent - you can have autonomous authorization without effective consent and can have effective consent without autonomous authorization - problem that arises when the two come apart (ex. twin kidney dilemma) o tension between bureaucratic and institutional needs o legal requirements take us farther away from autonomous consent 3. - the models of informed consent - what is the standard to determine whether or not the doctor has told the patient everything they need to know o old: community practise standard – physician based – what doctors normally do in situations o more recently: patient based standard  how do we know what’s adequate? – what do the patients need to know?  objective standard – ideal of a reasonable patient – what would this person need to know in order to make a decision about this particular kind of case?  subjective standard – what do YOU need to know – not the “reasonable patient” but YOU • the time it takes to disclose all the information is too much – gives the comparison of seeing 1 patient a day vs. 5 – but it depends on how high the stakes are • how are doctors going to react in terms of how they approach the issue of informed consent if they have to disclose all the risks? – what’s going to happen is that they are going to focus on risks rather than benefits – informed consent will become a procedure of going through every possible risk Reibl vs Spence - underwent surgery – everything in the surgery was done properly - during or sometime after, Reibl suffered a stroke that left him paralysed in the right side of his body - he claimed that the physician did not inform him of the risks of the stroke - the likelihood of the risk of stroke was very small so he was not told about it - Reibl case introduced the patient based standard into Canadian law - in the community based standard, the physician did nothing wrong, the risks were very small - objective standard – normally, patients don’t need to know all the risks - the subjective standard – what did Reibl need to know? - because Reibl couldn’t keep working after the surgery and stoke, he lost his pension – he said if he was known there was this risk, he would’ve chosen to wait until he got his pension – the risk of a shorter life would have been worth it Brody/Katz - worries about he reasonable p
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit