Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Account Res. 2014;21(6):331-52. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.866045.

Disclosure, consent, and the exercise of patient autonomy in surgical innovation: a systematic content analysis of the conceptual literature.

Author information

1
a Neuroethics Research Unit , Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM) , Montreal , Quebec , Canada.

Abstract

The classification of surgical innovation as clinical care, research, or as third distinct type of activity creates ambiguity which impacts standards for disclosure and informed consent. We conducted a systematic review of the conceptual literature to identify positions expressed about consent and disclosure, as well as major tension points associated with this issue. Literature overwhelmingly favors special consent and disclosure. Four major tension points were identified: the use of biasing/biased terminology to characterize innovation; patient vulnerability; the relationship between surgeon-innovator and patient; and practices and associated gaps related to consent and disclosure. Recommendations often focused on the informed consent process.

KEYWORDS:

autonomy; neuroethics; neurosurgery; surgical innovation

PMID:
24785994
DOI:
10.1080/08989621.2013.866045
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Taylor & Francis
    Loading ...
    Support Center