Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Informed Consent in Medical decision making in India

Rateesh Sareen, Akanksha Dutt

Abstract


Consent is one of the key elements for protection of welfare of patients or research participants. The physician has a legal and ethical responsibility to provide adequate information to the patient so that he or she is able to process the information and make appropriate decisions. The patient’s consent must be voluntary and competent. In order to meet the requirements for effective, informed decision making, a physician must disclose material facts, which are relevant to decision making, including the patient’s diagnosis, proposed treatment, risks and benefits of the treatment, alternative treatments along with their risks and benefits, and the risks of refusal. A physician must answer truthfully about the number of similar procedures or cases performed, and disclose success rates, and any financial conflict(s) of interest. The physician must advise patients of all personnel involved in their care and their respective roles, including residents, students, and equipment representatives. 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Ruth Faden & Thomas Beau Champ- A history of theory of informed consent (oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 60-3.

Nuremberg code- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1991.tb01825.x/abstractDOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.1991.tb01825.x ( Last accessed: 24 September, 2016)

‘Declaration of Helsinki,’ adopted by the 18th World Medical Association General Assembly, Helsinki,Finland (1964), s. II.1.

Eyal, N. (2012). Informed Consent. Retrieved August 15, 2012, from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2012/entries/informed-consent.

Miola, J. (2007). Medical ethics and medical law: A symbiotic relationship. Portland: Hart Publishing.

Indian Journal Urol 2009; 25(3):378-8.

Chambliss, Daniel F., and Russell K. Schutt.2010. Making Sense of the Social World:Methods of Invesgigation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: PineForge Press.

Reddy KSN. The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. Sugundevi K, Hyderabad. 21st edition 2002; 40-4.

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.

Section 3 in The Majority Act, 1875. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1124939/

GMC guidelines .http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice.asp

Ram Bihari Lal v Dr. J. N. Srivastava. AIR 1985 MP 150.

Universal Law Series; The code of criminaprocedures, Universal Law Publishing Co. PvtLtd., Delhi, 1973: 34-35.

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 Sec 11, {Last accessed 16, Sep , 2016} Available at : https://indiankanoon.org

The Indian Majority Act, 1875 Sec 3, {Last accessed 16, Sep , 2016} Available at : http://www.vakilno1.com/

Shaha et al., Sch. J. App. Med. Sci., 2013; 1(5):455-463

The Consumer Protection act, 1986. {last accessed 16, sep , 2016} available at :http://ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts

Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989:1–470.

Emanuel EJ, Joffe S. Ethics in oncology. In: Bast RC, Kufe DW, Pollock RE et al., eds. Cancer Medicine, Fifth Edition. Hamilton: B.C. Decker, Inc., 2000:1145–1163.

Berg JW, Applebaum PS, Lidz CW et al. Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001:1–340.

Meisel A, Roth LH, Lidz CW. Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent. Am J Psychiatry 1997; 134:285–289.

Bhattacharya NL, Susrata Samhita, University of Mysore, Mysore ,1973

Robert D.Miller, Problems in Health Care Law, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Massachusetts, 2006, p.46

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 WLR 582 (House of Lords 1957)

Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 782 (C.A.D.C. 1972).

Reibel v. Hughes (1980) 114 DLR 1.

Rogers v. Whittakar [1992] 175 CLR 479.

Smith v Tunbridge Wells Health Authority, [1994] 5 MedLR 334 (Court of Appeal 1994).

Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1 AC 134 (House of Lords 2004).

Dr.T.T.Thomas Vs. Smt. Elisa AIR 1987 Ker 52

Samera Kohli v Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Another. 2008 ;( 1) SCALE 442.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board BMJ 2015;350:h1534


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.