The HeLa incident at John Hopkins Medical Institute in the 1950’s highlighted the importance of informed consent in the medical field, it provides a strong example for the ethical and legal repercussions for disobeying the process and violating a patient’s unalienable human rights, and further reinforces its need. Informed consent is the undeniable prerequisite for a patient to be fully informed of a procedure and all of its aspects. This process is a necessary and pragmatic approach to maintaining a positive relationship between a physician and their patient; a necessity in ensuring human autonomy and the preservation of human rights.
Informed consent was originally devised by the United Nations Committee in the Nuremberg Code to prevent …show more content…
For a doctor to accept consent, the patient must be able to correctly evaluate the procedure and evaluate everything the doctor said, and the “Patient must be an adult and of sound mind. In case of children, consent must be obtained from a parent (Satyanarayana Rao, K H. Informed Consent: An Ethical Obligation or Legal Compulsion?).” If the patient is not of sound mind, a proxy must make the decision for them, this may be a relative. In a situation where the patient cannot understand the information, give consent, or both, and there are no proxies to make a decision on their behalf, the doctors must make the best decision for the patient and decide whether to administer the treatment. The consent given must also be specific, the patient must date and sign forms and the papers be copied and saved. Consent forms must include every aspect of the procedure and only the procedure, this applies to all tools and staff present; patients cannot give “An all-encompassing consent to the effect “I authorize so and so to carry out any test/procedure/surgery in the course of my treatment” is not valid (Satyanarayana Rao, K H. Informed Consent: An Ethical Obligation or Legal Compulsion?).” With this, a nurse from another hospital that was not listed specifically to be a part of the physicians team and was given permission to aid in the …show more content…
It is a process meant to strengthen the bond between a patient and their doctor. While informed consent is meant to protect the patient, there are already pre-existing methods which were set up thousands of years ago, in Greece: the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath was developed by Hippocrates, it was an oath where physicians swore to uphold specific ethical standards, or risk losing their license and respect. Anyone learning to become a doctor would recite: “Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves (Hippocratic Oath).” This oath was the basis for protecting patients and upholding moral standards for hundreds of years, and is acceptable on it’s own. The process of gathering informed consent can be considered unnecessary and imposing of scientific advancement and harmful to society, as someone who could recover from their ailment may not recover fully, or die, because they denied treatment. Doctors have already sworn to “Enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption (Hippocratic Oath).” If a doctor truly upholds the Hippocratic Oath, there would be no reason to use informed consent. If a doctor acted out of the oath, they would be
Informed consent was originally devised by the United Nations Committee in the Nuremberg Code to prevent …show more content…
For a doctor to accept consent, the patient must be able to correctly evaluate the procedure and evaluate everything the doctor said, and the “Patient must be an adult and of sound mind. In case of children, consent must be obtained from a parent (Satyanarayana Rao, K H. Informed Consent: An Ethical Obligation or Legal Compulsion?).” If the patient is not of sound mind, a proxy must make the decision for them, this may be a relative. In a situation where the patient cannot understand the information, give consent, or both, and there are no proxies to make a decision on their behalf, the doctors must make the best decision for the patient and decide whether to administer the treatment. The consent given must also be specific, the patient must date and sign forms and the papers be copied and saved. Consent forms must include every aspect of the procedure and only the procedure, this applies to all tools and staff present; patients cannot give “An all-encompassing consent to the effect “I authorize so and so to carry out any test/procedure/surgery in the course of my treatment” is not valid (Satyanarayana Rao, K H. Informed Consent: An Ethical Obligation or Legal Compulsion?).” With this, a nurse from another hospital that was not listed specifically to be a part of the physicians team and was given permission to aid in the …show more content…
It is a process meant to strengthen the bond between a patient and their doctor. While informed consent is meant to protect the patient, there are already pre-existing methods which were set up thousands of years ago, in Greece: the Hippocratic Oath. The Hippocratic Oath was developed by Hippocrates, it was an oath where physicians swore to uphold specific ethical standards, or risk losing their license and respect. Anyone learning to become a doctor would recite: “Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves (Hippocratic Oath).” This oath was the basis for protecting patients and upholding moral standards for hundreds of years, and is acceptable on it’s own. The process of gathering informed consent can be considered unnecessary and imposing of scientific advancement and harmful to society, as someone who could recover from their ailment may not recover fully, or die, because they denied treatment. Doctors have already sworn to “Enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption (Hippocratic Oath).” If a doctor truly upholds the Hippocratic Oath, there would be no reason to use informed consent. If a doctor acted out of the oath, they would be