![]()
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Informed consent
A colleague has sent me a copy of your recent
paper1 (http://www.nzma.org.nz/
journal/115-1162/181/). I write to express praise and sympathy in equal
measure.
I
retired in 1988 after more than 20 years on the staff of Green Lane Hospital.
Until then, we had been lucky in that nobody lectured us on our duty to provide
relevant explanations to our patients. We just gave them as a natural part of
our job, and I can’t recall any complaints. ‘Informed consent’
was discovered, in the Cartwright Report, as a considerable novelty; to us it
was rather old hat. I had been keenly interested in medical ethics since 1960; I
was a foundation member of the Green Lane Ethics Committees, one for patients
and another for experimental animals, from 1973 until my retirement.
Following Cartwright, such ‘local’ committees
were abolished. I thought it a big mistake. Beyond that, it seemed to me that
several provisions of the Cartwright Report were ‘difficult to accept,
insufficiently precise, or even
contradictory’.2 For example: ‘The
person seeking the patient’s consent must be satisfied that she can read
and understand it’. Yet, five lines on: ‘It should never be assumed
that the patient who appears to read and understand a form has in fact read and
understood it’. Verbal explanations must surely court this very dilemma,
but of course by then everything had to be written down as well, if only for our
self-defence.
Then there was the question of what ‘informed’
meant. Arguably, consent can be admirably informed yet quite ignorant. I wrote
about that.3 Franz Ingelfinger had said
something about it too.4
But of course all this writing went for nothing! Cartwright,
flawed or not, carried the day! I don’t want to discourage (far less
depress!) you, but I fancy that you shouldn’t expect much. ‘There is
a tide in the affairs of men, / Which, taken at the flood, leads on to
fortune’. I obviously missed the tide. Seeing what’s become of us, I
now think, despite a most rewarding professional life, that I should have read
Physics instead. I should have needed good doctors, but then I do now anyway! I
await Next Time Round with interest.
Do keep going!
Edward Harris
Formerly Physician-in-Charge Clinical Physiology Department, Green Lane Hospital References:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Current
issue | Search journal |
Archived issues | Classifieds
| Hotline (free ads) Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals |