SpringerLink
Log in

Is Informed Consent Ever Truly Informed?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Difficult Decisions in Surgical Ethics

Part of the book series: Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach ((DDSURGERY))

Abstract

The clinical ethical imperative to provide patients or their surrogate decision makers with relevant and tailored information is a serious endeavor that has challenged many generations of surgeons. The surgical informed consent process (SIC) is a critical aspect of surgical practice that is especially complex because patients are diverse individuals who do not automatically fit into algorithms. The sensitivity and specificity with which the SIC process must be embraced should be seen through the lens of each autonomous person. During SIC it is vital to understand what matters most to the patient. Only then can a surgeon facilitate a meaningful discussion that will honor a patient’s rights, dignity, preferences, goals and values. This chapter will address the evolution of the medicolegal and ethical aspects of the surgical informed consent process and how to optimally satisfy the communication needs. Additionally, this chapter will explore the adaptations to the surgical informed consent process during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meredyth NA, de Melo-Martin I. (Under)valuing surgical informed consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(2):257–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2019.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jonsen A, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinic ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. McGraw Hill Education; 2015. p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chotai PN, Tubbs RS, Huang EY. History and philosophy of surgical informed consent in children. Int J Philos Med. 2016;6:10601. https://doi.org/10.18550/ijhpm.0116.0601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Leclercq WKG, Keulers BJ, Scheltinga MRM, Spauwen PHM, van der Wilt G. A review of surgical informed consent: past, present, and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg. 2010;34:1406–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-010-0542-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Ajlouni KM. History of informed medical consent [letter]. Lancet. 1995;346(8980):980. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91608-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vollmann J, Winau R, Baron JH. History of informed medical consent [letter]. Lancet. 1997;347(8998):410. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90597-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rothman DJ. History of informed medical consent [letter]. Lancet. 1995;346(8990):1633. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736((5)91970-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Slater v. Baker & Stapleton, 95 Eng. Rep. 860 (K.B. 1767).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Murray PM. The history of informed consent. Iowa Orthop J. 1990;10:104–9.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Records of the United States Nuerenberg war crimes trials. United States of America v. Karl Brandt et al. (Case I). November 21, 1946–August 20, 1947. National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration; 1974. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/captured-german-records/microfilm/m887.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2021.

  11. Flory J, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants’ understanding in informed consent for research: a systemic review. JAMA. 2004;292(13):1593–601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohr v. Williams, 104 N.W. 12 (SC Minn 1905).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Scholendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 215, 105 N.E. 92 (1914).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Bd. Trustees, 317 P.2d 170 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957 1 WLR 582, 587.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Robert S. Jerry Canterbury, whose paralysis led to informed consent laws, is dead at 78. New York Times. May 16, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/jerry-canterbury-medical-consent-paralysis.html. Accessed 17 Feb 2021.

  18. Kastelein WR. Informed consent and medical liability: jurisprudence 1994–1998. [in Dutch]. Tijdschr Gezondhd. 1998;22:134–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03055782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ganai S. Informed consent and disclosure of surgeon experience. In: Ferreres AR, editor. Surgical ethics. Principles and practice. Springer; 2019. p. 219.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C., §§ 1395cc, 1396a (1990). https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/house-bill/4449. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

  21. West’s encyclopedia of American law: Fri to Jam. Thomson/Gale; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wortz G. Reducing liability risk through informed consent. J Med Pract Manage. 2011;26(4):203–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. MeSH Database. Informed consent. Term introduced 1973. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68007258?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Mesh.Mesh_ResultsPanel.Mesh_RVDoc%20Sum. Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

  24. Statement on principles of palliative care. American College of Surgeons. August 1, 2005. https://www.facs.org/about-acs/statements/50-palliative-care. Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

  25. Sindhu K. Can consent ever truly be informed? November 2, 2018. Doximity Op-Med. https://www.doximity.com/articles/57ea0c6b-1439-437d-95c0-ad2864579c94?utm_campaign=identified_redirect&utm_source=opmed. Accessed 12 Oct 2020.

  26. Brezis M, Israel S, Weinstein-Birenshtock A, Pogoda P, Sharon A, Tauber R. Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(5):352–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Silvia MC, Sorrell JM. Enhancing comprehension of information for informed consent: a review of empirical research. IRB: Ethics Hum Res. 1988;10(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/3564101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Volpe RL. Patient’s expressed and unexpressed needs for information for informed consent. J Clin Ethics. 2010;21(1):45–57. 20465076.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(1):54–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-140-1-200401060-00012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wiesen BM, Bronsert MR, Aasen DM, et al. Use of Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) and patient satisfaction during informed consent for surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(6):1025–33.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.02.049.

  31. Kinnersley P, Phillips K, Savage K, et al. Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;7:CD009445. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009445.pub2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Loftus TJ, Tighe PJ, Filiberto AC, et al. Artificial intelligence and surgical decision-making. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(2):148–58. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.4917.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kruser JM, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, et al. “Best case/worst case”: qualitative evaluation of a novel communication tool for difficult in-the-moment surgical decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(9):1805–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13615.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Schwarze ML, Kehler JM, Campbell TC. Navigating high-risk procedures with more than just a street map [letter]. J Palliat Med. 2013;16:1169–71. https://doi.org/10.1089/jprn.2013.0221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Prachand VN, Milner R, Angelos P, et al. Medically necessary, time-sensitive procedures: scoring system to ethically and efficiently manage resource scarcity and provider risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;231(2):281–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bryan AF, Milner R, Roggin KK, Angelos P, Matthews JB. Unknown unknowns: surgical consent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Surg. 2020;272(2):e161–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Angelos P, DaRosa DA, Bentram D, Sherman H. Residents seeking informed consent: are they adequately knowledgeable? Curr Surg. 2002;59(1):115–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7944(01)00591-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Yuk Ming Liu, MD for her assistance with the original literature search.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hospice & Palliative Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    T. Johelen Carleton

  2. Physician Just Equity, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Pringl Miller

Authors
  1. T. Johelen Carleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pringl Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Chicago Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Vassyl A. Lonchyna

  2. Providence Children’s Surgical Services St. Vincent Hospital, Portland, OR, USA

    Peggy Kelley

  3. Department of Surgery MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Peter Angelos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Carleton, T.J., Miller, P. (2022). Is Informed Consent Ever Truly Informed?. In: Lonchyna, V.A., Kelley, P., Angelos, P. (eds) Difficult Decisions in Surgical Ethics. Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84625-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84625-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84624-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84625-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation