Consent to treatment and the mentally incapacitated adult.
(1/33)
Doctors are sometimes faced with adult patients who lack the mental capacity to consent to treatment. In a questionnaire, 120 doctors in a district general hospital were asked what action they would take if such a patient had a clear need for elective treatment. Of the 89 who replied, 57 said they would seek consent from relatives or others; 11 of these, nevertheless, stated that treatment could proceed without such consent. These results, and inquiries about other options, pointed to widespread misunderstanding of the law. In English law, no one can give legally valid consent on behalf of another adult. When an individual is unable to give consent, common law allows a doctor to protect a patient's best interests by treating him or her in accordance with a responsible body of medical opinion. (+info)
Avoiding anomalous newborns: preemptive abortion, treatment thresholds and the case of baby Messenger.
(2/33)
In its American context the case of baby Messenger, a preterm infant disconnected from life-support by his father and allowed to die has generated debate about neonatal treatment protocols. Limited by the legal and ethical norms of the United States, this case did not consider treatment protocols that might be available in other countries such as Denmark and Israel: threshold protocols whereby certain classes of newborns are not treated, and preemptive abortion allowing one to choose late-term abortion rather than risk delivery. Each offers a viable and ethically sound avenue for dealing with the economic and social expense of anomalous newborns by aborting or not treating those most likely to burden the health care system. Objections that these protocols are antithetical to American bioethical principles are considered but rejected as each policy answers to economic justice, utility and respect for autonomy. (+info)
Presumed consent in emergency neonatal research.
(3/33)
Current methods of obtaining consent for emergency neonatal research are flawed. They risk aggravating the distress of parents of preterm and other sick neonates. This distress, and the inevitable time constraints, compromise understanding and voluntariness, essential components of adequately informed consent. Current practice may be unjust in over-representing babies of more vulnerable and deprived parents. The research findings may thus not be generalisable. Informing parents antenatally about the possible need for emergency neonatal research, with presumed consent and scope for opting out, would address these problems. It would spare parents of sick neonates, already terrified by their baby's illness, further distress. Experience with opting out suggests that recruitment might increase, thus generating earlier results, without compromising parental understanding of the nature and purpose of the research. (+info)
Sexualization of the doctor-patient relationship: is it ever ethically permissible?
(4/33)
Whilst having sexual relationships with current patients is clearly unethical, the ethics of such a relationship between a doctor and former patient is more debatable. In this review of the current evidence, based on major articles listed in Medline and Bioethicsline in the past 15 years, the argument is made here that such relationships are almost always unethical due to the persistence of transference, the unequal power distribution in the original doctor-patient relationship and the ethical implications that arise from both these factors especially with respect to the patient's autonomy and ability to consent, even when a former patient. Only in very particular circumstances could such relationships be ethically permissible. (+info)
HIV antibody testing: summary of BMA guidance.(5/33)
It is argued that the phrase "Necessary Inhumanity" more accurately describes the alienation required of doctors in some circumstances, than do modern sanitised coinages such as 'clinical detachment.' 'Detachment' and 'objectivity' imply separation, not engagement: creating distance not only from patients, but from the self: the process may well be required, but where it becomes too extreme or prolonged, it can damage everybody, including patients, family members, doctors themselves, and wider society. An awareness of the history of health care in the context of our society might assist self reflection--might help keep initiates in touch with the culture they have been induced to leave and might help them remain humane despite the bruising process of training. (+info)
DNA databanks and consent: a suggested policy option involving an authorization model.
(7/33)
BACKGROUND: Genetic databases are becoming increasingly common as a means of determining the relationship between lifestyle, environmental exposures and genetic diseases. These databases rely on large numbers of research subjects contributing their genetic material to successfully explore the genetic basis of disease. However, as all possible research questions that can be posed of the data are unknown, an unresolved ethical issue is the status of informed consent for future research uses of genetic material. DISCUSSION: In this paper, we discuss the difficulties of an informed consent model for future ineffable uses of genetic data. We argue that variations on consent, such as presumed consent, blanket consent or constructed consent fail to meet the standards required by current informed consent doctrine and are distortions of the original concept. In this paper, we propose the concept of an authorization model whereby participants in genetic data banks are able to exercise a certain amount of control over future uses of genetic data. We argue this preserves the autonomy of individuals at the same time as allowing them to give permission and discretion to researchers for certain types of research. SUMMARY: The authorization model represents a step forward in the debate about informed consent in genetic databases. The move towards an authorization model would require changes in the regulatory and legislative environments. Additionally, empirical support of the utility and acceptability of authorization is required. (+info)
Presumed consent for transplantation: a dead issue after Alder Hey?
(8/33)
In the wake of scandals about the unauthorised retention of organs following postmortem examination, the issue of valid consent (or the lack of it) has returned to the forefront. Emphasis is put on obtaining explicit authorisation from the patient or family prior to any medical intervention, including those involving the dead. Although the controversies in the UK arose from the retention of human material for education or research rather than therapy, concern has been expressed that public mistrust could also adversely affect organ donation for transplantation. At the same time, however, the British Medical Association (BMA) continues to call for a shift to a system of presumed consent for organ transplantation. This apparent inconsistency can be justified because valid distinctions exist between the reasons requiring explicit consent for retention and the acceptability of presumed consent for transplantation. This paper argues for introducing a system of presumed consent for organ donation, given the overwhelming expressions of public support for transplantation. Ongoing legislative review in the UK provides an ideal chance to alter the default position to one where potential donors can simply acquiesce or opt out of donation. Combined with consultation with their relatives, this could be a much better method of realising individuals' wishes. It would also achieve a better balance between the duties owed to the deceased and those owed to people awaiting a transplant. (+info)