Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:21:01.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informed Consent and the Nurse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Angela R. Holder and
John W. Lewis
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Informed consent, as the courts define it, is the patient's right to know, before agreeing to a procedure, what the procedure entails — the hazards, the possible complications, and expected results of the treatment. The patient must understand any reasonable alternatives to the proposed procedure, including, in most cases, the results that can be predicted from nontreatment. The choice among alternative risks involves value judgments falling outside the scope of medical decision-making, including the patient's views on social, economic, and other personal factors of which health professionals cannot possibly be aware.

The negotiations necessary to obtain the patient's informed consent are the responsibility of the person who will perform the procedure. If a physician is in charge, the physician may delegate the discussion to another but retains the legal responsibility to make sure the patient understands.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Nursing Law & Ethics , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , February 1981, pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Mitchell v. Robinson, 334 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1960); Martm v. Bralliear, 540 P.2d 111 (Colo. 1975).Google Scholar
2.Dunham v. Wright, 423 F.2d 940 (3d Cir. 1970); Young v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 534 F. Supp. 776 (D. Ark. 1976).Google Scholar
3.Forney v. Memorial Hospital, 543 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1976).Google Scholar
4.Cooper v. Curry, 589 P.2d 201 (N.M. 1979).Google Scholar
5.Roberson v. Menorah Medical Center, 588S.W.2d 134(Mo. 1979).Google Scholar
6.However, in a 1966 case involving a “novel and unorthodox” treatment, a New York court did hold a hospital liable for failure “to ascertain that the physician had made such a disclosure before permitting the operation to take place.” Fiorentino v. Wengen, 272 N.Y.S.2d 557 (App. Div. 1966). And in the famous case, Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 502 P.2d 1 (1972), the hospital paid a jury verdict rather than appeal.Google Scholar
7.Holder, A.R., What Commitment Is Made by a Witness to a Consent Form? IRB 1(7):7 (November 1979).Google Scholar
8.Vaccarino, J.M., Consent, Informed Consent and the Consent Form, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE 298(8):455 (February 23,1978).Google Scholar
9.45 C.F.R. §46.110.Google Scholar
10.CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §§ 24170-24179.5, at 24173(d).Google Scholar
11.VA. CODE Ch. 13 §§ 37.1-234-37.1-238, at 37.1-235.Google Scholar
12.Hiattv. Groce, 523 P.2d 320(Kans. 1974); Utter v. United Hospital Center, 236 S.E.2d 213(W. Va. 1977).Google Scholar

A correction has been issued for this article:

Correction