Informed Consent In Medical Research

The following is written not as research with data or studies to document its findings. Or to draw definite conciliations for or agenst the subject of Informed consent. It is to give thought as to what roll each of us may have to better improve the issues of the Informed consent

Informed consent:

As defined an “Informed consent” is the process by which a patient learns about and understands the purpose, benefits, and potential risks of any medical procedures, including clinical trials, and then agrees to receive the treatment or participate in the trial.

You might say the concept of consent arises both from the ethical principle of basic human rights and a legal issue.

The Patient has the freedom to decide what should or should not happen

Because exchange of property is a strict liability tort, the court feared that extending property rights to include organs would have a chilling effect on medical research. Laboratories doing research receive a large volume of medical samples and cannot be expected to know or discover whether somewhere down the line their samples were illegally obtained. Moore could sue only his doctor, nobody else, for failing to adequately inform him. Just one of many examples of the shortfalls of an informed consent. From a legal standpoint no one has the right to even touch, let alone treat another person without permission. This would be classified as “battery” physical assault and is punishable by law. From this one might say obtaining consent is a must for anything other than a routine physical examination.

A Patient should be given the opportunity to ask questions and clarify all doubts. There must not be any kind of pressure to do so. Consent must be voluntary and a patient should have the freedom to revoke the consent. By law, Consent given under fear of intimidation, misconception or misrepresentation of facts can be held invalid.

The ethical

A doctor may have to operate even in the absence of consent, to save the life of the patient. It is possible that even with such an intervention, the patient may not survive. Assuming that the doctor is competent and has exercised due care and diligence, the doctor cannot be held responsible for a patient's death, as the doctor has acted in good faith and in the best interest of the patient.

Maintaining a good Doctor patient relationship often works better than the best informed consent!

The informed consent issue as discussed is very much driven not by the medical procedure or research being done or what could arise from it. Some might say, is it necessary at all? Is it really worth the paper it’s written on if the validity can only be resolved in a court of law?

Does the “informed consent” arise from the issue of legality or ethics?

If from legality that means that ethics plays no part. Or by being so legal, could it become unethical!

There was a man who followed the letter of the law and by doing so was meticulously legal. Yet he was found to be unethical in his