Talk:Informed consent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] History
There should be a section on the history of informed consent. I seem to recall that Walter Reed's yellow fever team made some early efforts at this. See the book: Crosby, Molly C. 2006. The American Plague: the untold story of yellow fever, the epidemic that shaped our history. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-425-21775-7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas.Hedden (talk • contribs) 03:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MKUltra
In the MKULTRA article, there is a lot of information on the legal issues of informed consent that could be incorporated and expanded upon here. —Psychonaut 13:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Surgery
May I recommend changing that heading to "Informed consent in medicine" or something more reflective of the content? Ming-Chih Kao 07:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) . oooO............. (....)... Oooo..... .\..(.....(....)... ..\_)..... )../.... .......... (_/.....
[edit] Self-help
Hello. Some visitors to this article may find themselves in the position of having to make a decision about participate in research and not know how to proceed. May I make a suggestion? I spent twenty years in the field of human research protections within the U.S. government. After retirement a few years back, I perceived a void in information devoted to prospective research subject use. An entity was created to fill the void. I'm the founder. It's resultant website is linked to by self-selected research institutions. The website is an entry level service to the public. There are no gimmicks, just information, tools and references.
An external link to the website might serve as adjunct value to the this Wikipedia article by facilitating access to self-help tools. Such tools include a checklist concerning consent and a flowchart to place the process of consent in a larger decision-making context. You can see what I mean by a quick trip to the site for a look-see, if you're interested. I'm learning the Wikipedia ropes and am conscious of conflict of interest issues. I'd feel more comfortable if others concurred with the idea.
If thought suitable, perhaps something like the following external link: GetResearchSmart LLC Website Entry-level self-help information, tools and references for use by prospective research subjects and others. Hope you find this suggestion helpful. Cheers! CCS 15:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The link that your suggesting for this article is not appropriate as it advertises a service rather than a resource about the subject.--Hu12 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please see response at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GRS_LLC_Founder#Username. Thanks! CCS 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article flys off topic
There are several problems with this article. First, it confuses informed consent, a tort law issue, with consent the criminal law issue. Any section which begins to discuss the criminal implications of a lack of consent are beyond the scope of this article. Second, the article discusses quite a bit of sexual fetishism. There isn't a legal treatise in the world on the topic of inform consent that goes into the detail that this article does. The authors of this material display a lack of understanding of the law. Third, examples are given of "problems" with informed consent, areas where the outcome may not be clear, such as sex with a sleeping woman. This is blatantly false to anyone with knowledge of criminal law (again off topic). Fourth, the article quite quickly goes off topic to include discussion of consent which is completely different from informed consent. Fifth, the article lacks citations. There are a few sections of material that is actually correct. Unfortunately, it is uncited and surrounded by material that is made up. The legal definition of informed consent is "A person's agreement to allow something to happen, made with full knowledge of the risks involved and the alternatives. • For the legal profession, informed consent is defined in Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.0(e). 2. A patient's knowing choice about a medical treatment or procedure, made after a physician or other healthcare provider discloses whatever information a reasonably prudent provider in the medical community would give to a patient regarding the risks involved in the proposed treatment or procedure." (Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition). There do not exist any scholarly works that fit BDSM or sex with a corpse into that definition. Legis Nuntius (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- You talk a lot about criminal law and even malign other authors for a "lack of understanding" yet I see not one indication of which nation's law you are talking about and I know for certain there are some where the statements you make are wrong. You quote a legal definition that is far from globally acceptable and even talk of a "Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.0(e). 2" that I've only heard mention of in the narrow sphere of the USA. If this is an indication of your limited knowledge of scholarly works, perhaps you should learn more before blowing off too much more about how other editors do not know the material. --Interesdom (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response and criticism of my critique of the article as a whole. The criminal law article for this topic is at consent (criminal), which although written mainly from a British perspective, more appropriately addresses the issues this article attempts to put forth without citation. I quote legal definitions. (1) The applicability of one definition says nothing of the veracity of the whole. (2) Rules of Professional Conduct exist in all jurisdictions. (3) By quoting a definition where the article is false, the article necessarily does not express a world-wide view of the subject. (4) If the article does not express a world-wide view of the subject, the author either (a) neglected to take into consideration all jurisdictions or (b) has no knowledge of other jurisdictions. The article as it stands mentions no jurisdiction. Could it be within the "narrow sphere" of the U.K.? I believe that a quotation from a dictionary is not an "indication of (my) limited knowledge of scholarly works." Is my definition wrong because it includes one that applies to the U.S.? The doctrine of informed consent originated in Slater v. Baker and Stapleton 95 Eng. Rep. 860 (K.B. 1767), which is an English case (not American and automatically false). Why this article makes no mention of this case or any other case, I do not know. In the 18th century, the King's Bench still had influence over the colonies and the doctrine emigrated from Britain into the common law of colony jurisdictions. A google search of the case will yield sufficient information that can be obtained outside of a law library. MacDonald, Kaufman, Capron, and Birnbaum Treatise on Health Care Law sec. 17.01(b) refers to the case:
the opinion...does not clearly address the possibility of the patient's refusal of the proposed treatment. Rather, it seems to treat the purpose of informing the patient as being to allow the patient to prepare himself for what the doctor is about to do.
In the U.S., the case which rang the doctrine into universal acceptance comes from Judge Cardozo in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital 211 N.Y. 125 (1914) (citing Minnesota authority which ultimately cites English common law authority). Refering to the above criticisms of my critique: "I see not one indication of which nation's law you are talking about" The jurisdiction I refer to is English common law, which is the scope of the article (see template of tort law at article side bar). The "Sex" section cites no authority or jurisdiction. "and I know for certain there are some where the statements you make are wrong." This is a little ambiguous, but I believe that this may have had to do with my specific statement concerning consent of a sleeping person. I think it most appropriate to cite authorities from England for that statement, although I could cite from Canada, the U.S., Australia etc.
"However it would seem pretty surprising to couples sharing a bed to be told that the law prohibited either of them from intimately touching the other while asleep, and that they would be potentially liable to prosecution and punishment, for a sexual touch of the sleeping partner as a preliminary to possible sexual activity which the sleeping partner, on awakening, might welcome." Sir Igor Judge, President of the Queen's Bench, R. v. Jheeta 2 Cr. App. R. 34 (2007).
Discussed in that Court of Appeal was the Sexual Offences Act of 2003
"s 75 Evidential presumptions about consent (1) If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved- (a) that the defendant did the relevant act,(b) that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and (c) that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed, the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act...(2)The circumstances are that (d) the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act."
and yet the article states: "For example, people who perform sexual acts on sleeping people are not given consent unless the initiator have given prior informed consent to the act within a reasonable recency, and are assumed to be consenting during the act and to not prosecute for it when waking up." The information directly following the "unless" is false. Of course, this is completely off topic from the jurisprudence which arose from the Stapleton case. There are numerous misunderstandings in the article on the differencs between the law of consent and informed consent in relation to tort law and criminal law. Any additions or subtractions shall be fully justified by appropriate references, I assure you. You need not fear that my limited knowledge of the subject be unsubstantiated. Legis Nuntius (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
