Key result
A historical and ethical review of informed consent provides context for its application and nuances within the clinical domain of regional anesthesia.
This paper reviews the historical and ethical context of informed consent, applying these concepts to the clinical domain of regional anesthesia.
Upholds autonomy in orthopedic decision-making; leaves open standardization of consent processes across procedures.
Informed Consent is the primary method employed in clinical practice by which patients and their physicians incorporate a patient’s values, preferences, expectations, and fears in treatment decision-making [1]. Grounded in the philosophical concept of autonomy, it reflects a departure from the paternalistic tradition of western medicine, revealed first in the writings of Hippocrates and remaining dominant until recent times [2]. The practice of Informed Consent in the clinical arena evolved primarily through the medical profession’s responses to various decisions by the courts. In this paper we review the concept of Informed Consent from a historical and ethical perspective and, in so doing, provide a context for a discussion of these considerations to a specific clinical domain, that of regional anesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Green et al. (2007) conducted a review in Regional anesthesia. Informed Consent was evaluated. A historical and ethical review of informed consent provides context for its application and nuances within the clinical domain of regional anesthesia.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: