知情同意和蒙哥马利对临床实践的影响

Chantal Patel
{"title":"知情同意和蒙哥马利对临床实践的影响","authors":"Chantal Patel","doi":"10.1016/j.mpmed.2024.04.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Consent is central to the delivery of healthcare, and all healthcare professionals must obtain consent before proceeding with any interventions. The nature of informed consent allows the patient to fully participate in any proposed healthcare interventions. Informed consent requires high-quality information to be given that enables the patient to fully understand all the benefits as well as the risks associated with proposed interventions. This approach respects the right of the patient to self-determine what happens to their body provided they have the relevant capacity to understand the nature of the proposed intervention. Although consent may be seen as a procedural ‘must’, the importance of the dialogue that takes place between the patient and the clinician is what determines the validity of the consent as advocated by the Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland) [2015]. It is noted that the number of legal cases related to consent has risen since the Montgomery decision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74157,"journal":{"name":"Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Informed consent and Montgomery implications for clinical practice\",\"authors\":\"Chantal Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mpmed.2024.04.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Consent is central to the delivery of healthcare, and all healthcare professionals must obtain consent before proceeding with any interventions. The nature of informed consent allows the patient to fully participate in any proposed healthcare interventions. Informed consent requires high-quality information to be given that enables the patient to fully understand all the benefits as well as the risks associated with proposed interventions. This approach respects the right of the patient to self-determine what happens to their body provided they have the relevant capacity to understand the nature of the proposed intervention. Although consent may be seen as a procedural ‘must’, the importance of the dialogue that takes place between the patient and the clinician is what determines the validity of the consent as advocated by the Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland) [2015]. It is noted that the number of legal cases related to consent has risen since the Montgomery decision.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74157,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1357303924001002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1357303924001002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同意是提供医疗保健服务的核心,所有医疗保健专业人员在进行任何干预之前都必须征得同意。知情同意的性质允许患者充分参与任何拟议的医疗干预。知情同意要求提供高质量的信息,使患者能够充分了解与拟议干预相关的所有益处和风险。这种方法尊重病人自我决定其身体状况的权利,前提是他们有相关能力了解拟议干预措施的性质。尽管同意可能被视为程序上的 "必须",但正如最高法院在 "蒙哥马利诉拉纳克郡卫生委员会(苏格兰)案"(Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland) [2015])中所主张的那样,患者与临床医生之间的对话的重要性决定了同意的有效性。据悉,自蒙哥马利案判决以来,与同意相关的法律案件数量有所增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Informed consent and Montgomery implications for clinical practice

Consent is central to the delivery of healthcare, and all healthcare professionals must obtain consent before proceeding with any interventions. The nature of informed consent allows the patient to fully participate in any proposed healthcare interventions. Informed consent requires high-quality information to be given that enables the patient to fully understand all the benefits as well as the risks associated with proposed interventions. This approach respects the right of the patient to self-determine what happens to their body provided they have the relevant capacity to understand the nature of the proposed intervention. Although consent may be seen as a procedural ‘must’, the importance of the dialogue that takes place between the patient and the clinician is what determines the validity of the consent as advocated by the Supreme Court ruling in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland) [2015]. It is noted that the number of legal cases related to consent has risen since the Montgomery decision.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信