Abstract
Until about thirty years ago, the extent of disclosure about and consent-seeking for medical interventions was influenced by a beneficence model of professional behaviour. Informed consent shifted attention to a duty to respect the autonomy of patients. The new requirement arrived on the American scene in two separate contexts: for daily practice in 1957, and for clinical study in 1966. A confusing double standard has been established. 'Daily consent' is reviewed, if at all, only in retrospect. Doctors are merely exhorted to obtain informed consent; they often minimise uncertainties about 'best' treatment and they feel duty-bound to provide patients with an unequivocal recommendation for action. 'Study consent' in a clinical trial is reviewed prospectively, and doctors are compelled by regulation to point out that there is insufficient evidence to make a rational choice between two compared treatments. It has been impossible to devise informed consent practices that satisfy, in full, the competing moral imperatives of respect for autonomy, concern for beneficence with emphasis on the value of health, and a vigil for justice. A way must be found to experiment with various discretionary approaches that would strike a realistic balance among competing interests.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Beecher H. K. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966 Jun 16;274(24):1354–1360. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196606162742405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Blum A. L., Chalmers T. C., Deutsch E., Koch-Weser J., Rosén A., Tygstrup N., Zentgraf R. The Lugano statements on controlled clinical trials. J Int Med Res. 1987 Jan-Feb;15(1):2–22. doi: 10.1177/030006058701500102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cardon P. V., Dommel F. W., Trumble R. R. Injuries to research subjects A survey of investigators. N Engl J Med. 1976 Sep 16;295(12):650–654. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197609162951205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Edlund M. J., Craig T. J., Richardson M. A. Informed consent as a form of volunteer bias. Am J Psychiatry. 1985 May;142(5):624–627. doi: 10.1176/ajp.142.5.624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 16;317(3):141–145. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Heinonen O. P. Diethylstilbestrol in pregnancy. Frequency of exposure and usage patterns. Cancer. 1973 Mar;31(3):573–577. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197303)31:3<573::aid-cncr2820310312>3.0.co;2-#. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herbst A. L., Ulfelder H., Poskanzer D. C. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina. Association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearance in young women. N Engl J Med. 1971 Apr 15;284(15):878–881. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197104222841604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rothman D. J. Ethics and human experimentation. Henry Beecher revisited. N Engl J Med. 1987 Nov 5;317(19):1195–1199. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198711053171906. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Silverman W. A. SSPR Mini-Symposium: Methodologic Controversies in Clinical Research: Consent for experimentation involving neonates. Am J Med Sci. 1988 Nov;296(5):354–359. doi: 10.1097/00000441-198811000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Simes R. J., Tattersall M. H., Coates A. S., Raghavan D., Solomon H. J., Smartt H. Randomised comparison of procedures for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials of treatment for cancer. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 Oct 25;293(6554):1065–1068. doi: 10.1136/bmj.293.6554.1065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zelen M. A new design for randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979 May 31;300(22):1242–1245. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197905313002203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]