Consent for Medical Treatment: What is 'Reasonable'?
The General Medical Council (GMC) instructs doctors to act 'reasonably' in obtaining consent from patients. However, the GMC does not explain what it means to be reasonable: it is left to doctors to figure out the substance of this instruction. The GMC relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Montg...
| Publicado en: | Health Care Analysis Vol. 32; no. 1; pp. 47 - 63 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Mar2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=175718183&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 175718183 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 10653058 OFZ jtl: Health Care Analysis issn: 10653058 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Mar2024 vid: 32 iid: 1 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 175718183 10.1007/s10728-023-00466-8 ppf: 47 ppct: 16 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 860KB tig: atl: Consent for Medical Treatment: What is 'Reasonable'? aug: au: Sarela, Abeezar Ismail affil: https://ror.org/00v4dac24 Department of Surgery, The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK su: Occupational roles Judgment (Psychology) Medical care Patient satisfaction Informed consent (Medical law) Courts Negligence Patient care Physicians Legislation Law Patient decision making sug: subj: Occupational roles Judgment (Psychology) Medical care Patient satisfaction Informed consent (Medical law) Courts Negligence Patient care Physicians Legislation Law Courts Offices of Physicians (except Mental Health Specialists) Offices of physicians Patient decision making keyword: Bolam Clinical negligence General Medical Council Informed consent Montgomery v Lanarkshire Test of materiality Bolam Clinical negligence General Medical Council Informed consent Montgomery v Lanarkshire Test of materiality ab: The General Medical Council (GMC) instructs doctors to act 'reasonably' in obtaining consent from patients. However, the GMC does not explain what it means to be reasonable: it is left to doctors to figure out the substance of this instruction. The GMC relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board; and it can be assumed that the judges' idea of reasonability is adopted. The aim of this paper is to flesh out this idea of reasonability. This idea is commonly personified as the audience that has to be satisfied by the doctor's justification for offering, or withholding, certain treatments and related information. In case law, this audience shifted from a reasonable doctor to a 'reasonable person in the patient's position'; and Montgomery expands the audience to include 'particular' patients, too. Senior judges have clarified that the reasonable person is a normative ideal, and not a sociological construct; but they do not set out the characteristics of this ideal. John Rawls has conceived the reasonable person-ideal as one that pursues fair terms of co-operation with other members of society. An alternative ideal can be inferred from the feminist ethic of care. However, the reasonable patient from Montgomery does not align with either theoretical ideal; but, instead, is an entirely rational being. Such a conception conflicts with both real-life constraints on rationality and the doctor's duty to care for the patient, and it challenges the practice of medicine. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|