Chapter 3.C.1 (or 2.B.1). Goals, Aspirations, Policies
Notes: The Theory and Practice of Informed Consent
Note 1. Using Legal Rules to Foster Autonomy.
For a critique of the current system of patient autonomy and the physician-patient fiduciary relationship see: Roger B. Dworkin, Getting What we Should from Doctors: Rethinking Patient Autonomy and the Doctor-Patient Relationship, 13 Health Matrix 235 (2003).
Note 3. Information that is Harmful: Genetics and AIDS.
For an analysis of current ethical and legal guidelines regarding informed consent and biobanks, see Ellen Wright Clayton, Informed Consent and Biobanks, 33 J.L. Med. & Ethics (2005).
Note 6. Individual Autonomy and Medical Research.
D.B. Resnik, Eliminating the daily life risks from the definition of minimal risk, J. Med. Ethics 2005 31: 35-38 (2005) (critique of the use of the “daily life risks” standard in the federal human research regulations).
Note 8. The Spectrum of Informed Consent Standards.
Darke v. Estate of Dr. Jeffrey M. Isner, 2004 WL 1325635 (Mass. Super. June 3, 2004) (physician breaches standard of care by failing to disclose his financial interests in a proposed treatment).
Note 9. Additional Commentaries.
For general discussions of informed consent, see George P. Smith, II, The Vagaries of Informed Consent, 1 Ind. Health L. Rev. 109 (2004); and Laurent B. Frantz, Annotation, Modern Status of Views as to General Measure of Physician’s Duty to Inform Patient of Risks of Proposed Treatment, 88 A.L.R. 3d 1008 (1978) updated 2006.