Consent for anaesthesia
Summary Current professional guidelines concerning information and consent for anaesthesia are a fair representation of English law. However, they reject the need for specific, written consent for anaesthesia, a position which is in accordance with other Western jurisdictions. This is understandable...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Anaesthesia 2003-08, Vol.58 (8), p.760-774 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 774 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 760 |
container_title | Anaesthesia |
container_volume | 58 |
creator | White, S. M. Baldwin, T. J. |
description | Summary Current professional guidelines concerning information and consent for anaesthesia are a fair representation of English law. However, they reject the need for specific, written consent for anaesthesia, a position which is in accordance with other Western jurisdictions. This is understandable, as there would be a number of problems inherent in such an approach: the consent process would be unnecessarily labour and time intensive, the generic nature of the information to be disclosed would not allow for operator‐dependent variables, and many of the disclosable risks continue to be of uncertain incidence. Moreover, written consent is not needed in order to defend cases of assault by anaesthetists. However, for the very reason that there are a large number of risks associated with anaesthesia (risks that are unknown to the majority of surgeons), together with the possibility of the courts moving towards a reasonable patient standard of information disclosure (as a result of the introduction of human rights legislation into English law), it is our view that the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland should change their guidelines and advise anaesthetists to obtain separate, written affirmation from patients that certain risks and consequences of anaesthesia have been explained to them. In addition, a standardised consent form for anaesthesia may prove invaluable in retrospectively defending a claim of negligence founded around information disclosure, by recording exactly the risks and consequences of interventions discussed by the anaesthetist and the patient. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03202.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73476053</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>73476053</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3962-caf06c3c2213263d8797cfc32f8485757f25c64a91bb565308b94cb135398d013</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkL1PwzAQxS0EoqUws6EusCWcfbZjL0hVVT6kChaYLce1Rao0KXEr2v-ehEZ0ZbqT3u_u3T1CxhRSClzeL1OKUiQMOE8ZAKaADFi6OyHDP-GUDKGVEsZBD8hFjEsAyhRV52TQVqG5VENyPa2r6KvNONTN2FbWx82nj4W9JGfBltFf9XVEPh5n79PnZP729DKdzBOHWrLE2QDSoWOMIpO4UJnOXHDIguJKZCILTDjJraZ5LqRAULnmLqcoUKsFUByRu8PedVN_bVt3syqi82VpK19vo8mQZxIEtqA6gK6pY2x8MOumWNlmbyiYLhSzNN3vpvvddKGY31DMrh296T22-covjoN9Ci1w2wM2OluGxlauiEeOa8FB8JZ7OHDfRen3_z7ATF4ns67FH405ecM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>73476053</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Consent for anaesthesia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>White, S. M. ; Baldwin, T. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>White, S. M. ; Baldwin, T. J.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Current professional guidelines concerning information and consent for anaesthesia are a fair representation of English law. However, they reject the need for specific, written consent for anaesthesia, a position which is in accordance with other Western jurisdictions. This is understandable, as there would be a number of problems inherent in such an approach: the consent process would be unnecessarily labour and time intensive, the generic nature of the information to be disclosed would not allow for operator‐dependent variables, and many of the disclosable risks continue to be of uncertain incidence. Moreover, written consent is not needed in order to defend cases of assault by anaesthetists. However, for the very reason that there are a large number of risks associated with anaesthesia (risks that are unknown to the majority of surgeons), together with the possibility of the courts moving towards a reasonable patient standard of information disclosure (as a result of the introduction of human rights legislation into English law), it is our view that the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland should change their guidelines and advise anaesthetists to obtain separate, written affirmation from patients that certain risks and consequences of anaesthesia have been explained to them. In addition, a standardised consent form for anaesthesia may prove invaluable in retrospectively defending a claim of negligence founded around information disclosure, by recording exactly the risks and consequences of interventions discussed by the anaesthetist and the patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-2409</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03202.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12859468</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ANASAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Anaesthesia ; Anesthesia ; Anesthesia - ethics ; Anesthesia - standards ; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy ; Anesthesiology - legislation & jurisprudence ; Biological and medical sciences ; consent forms ; England ; Ethics, Clinical ; Humans ; Informed consent ; Informed Consent - ethics ; Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence ; Informed Consent - standards ; jurisprudence ; Legislation ; Malpractice - legislation & jurisprudence ; Medical sciences ; Miscellaneous ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation</subject><ispartof>Anaesthesia, 2003-08, Vol.58 (8), p.760-774</ispartof><rights>2003 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3962-caf06c3c2213263d8797cfc32f8485757f25c64a91bb565308b94cb135398d013</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3962-caf06c3c2213263d8797cfc32f8485757f25c64a91bb565308b94cb135398d013</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2044.2003.03202.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2044.2003.03202.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,27903,27904,45553,45554,46387,46811</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=14954054$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12859468$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>White, S. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldwin, T. J.</creatorcontrib><title>Consent for anaesthesia</title><title>Anaesthesia</title><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><description>Summary Current professional guidelines concerning information and consent for anaesthesia are a fair representation of English law. However, they reject the need for specific, written consent for anaesthesia, a position which is in accordance with other Western jurisdictions. This is understandable, as there would be a number of problems inherent in such an approach: the consent process would be unnecessarily labour and time intensive, the generic nature of the information to be disclosed would not allow for operator‐dependent variables, and many of the disclosable risks continue to be of uncertain incidence. Moreover, written consent is not needed in order to defend cases of assault by anaesthetists. However, for the very reason that there are a large number of risks associated with anaesthesia (risks that are unknown to the majority of surgeons), together with the possibility of the courts moving towards a reasonable patient standard of information disclosure (as a result of the introduction of human rights legislation into English law), it is our view that the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland should change their guidelines and advise anaesthetists to obtain separate, written affirmation from patients that certain risks and consequences of anaesthesia have been explained to them. In addition, a standardised consent form for anaesthesia may prove invaluable in retrospectively defending a claim of negligence founded around information disclosure, by recording exactly the risks and consequences of interventions discussed by the anaesthetist and the patient.</description><subject>Anaesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia</subject><subject>Anesthesia - ethics</subject><subject>Anesthesia - standards</subject><subject>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</subject><subject>Anesthesiology - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>consent forms</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Ethics, Clinical</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Informed consent</subject><subject>Informed Consent - ethics</subject><subject>Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Informed Consent - standards</subject><subject>jurisprudence</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Malpractice - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation</subject><issn>0003-2409</issn><issn>1365-2044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkL1PwzAQxS0EoqUws6EusCWcfbZjL0hVVT6kChaYLce1Rao0KXEr2v-ehEZ0ZbqT3u_u3T1CxhRSClzeL1OKUiQMOE8ZAKaADFi6OyHDP-GUDKGVEsZBD8hFjEsAyhRV52TQVqG5VENyPa2r6KvNONTN2FbWx82nj4W9JGfBltFf9XVEPh5n79PnZP729DKdzBOHWrLE2QDSoWOMIpO4UJnOXHDIguJKZCILTDjJraZ5LqRAULnmLqcoUKsFUByRu8PedVN_bVt3syqi82VpK19vo8mQZxIEtqA6gK6pY2x8MOumWNlmbyiYLhSzNN3vpvvddKGY31DMrh296T22-covjoN9Ci1w2wM2OluGxlauiEeOa8FB8JZ7OHDfRen3_z7ATF4ns67FH405ecM</recordid><startdate>200308</startdate><enddate>200308</enddate><creator>White, S. M.</creator><creator>Baldwin, T. J.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200308</creationdate><title>Consent for anaesthesia</title><author>White, S. M. ; Baldwin, T. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3962-caf06c3c2213263d8797cfc32f8485757f25c64a91bb565308b94cb135398d013</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Anaesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia</topic><topic>Anesthesia - ethics</topic><topic>Anesthesia - standards</topic><topic>Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy</topic><topic>Anesthesiology - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>consent forms</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Ethics, Clinical</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Informed consent</topic><topic>Informed Consent - ethics</topic><topic>Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Informed Consent - standards</topic><topic>jurisprudence</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Malpractice - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>White, S. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldwin, T. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>White, S. M.</au><au>Baldwin, T. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Consent for anaesthesia</atitle><jtitle>Anaesthesia</jtitle><addtitle>Anaesthesia</addtitle><date>2003-08</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>58</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>760</spage><epage>774</epage><pages>760-774</pages><issn>0003-2409</issn><eissn>1365-2044</eissn><coden>ANASAB</coden><abstract>Summary Current professional guidelines concerning information and consent for anaesthesia are a fair representation of English law. However, they reject the need for specific, written consent for anaesthesia, a position which is in accordance with other Western jurisdictions. This is understandable, as there would be a number of problems inherent in such an approach: the consent process would be unnecessarily labour and time intensive, the generic nature of the information to be disclosed would not allow for operator‐dependent variables, and many of the disclosable risks continue to be of uncertain incidence. Moreover, written consent is not needed in order to defend cases of assault by anaesthetists. However, for the very reason that there are a large number of risks associated with anaesthesia (risks that are unknown to the majority of surgeons), together with the possibility of the courts moving towards a reasonable patient standard of information disclosure (as a result of the introduction of human rights legislation into English law), it is our view that the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland should change their guidelines and advise anaesthetists to obtain separate, written affirmation from patients that certain risks and consequences of anaesthesia have been explained to them. In addition, a standardised consent form for anaesthesia may prove invaluable in retrospectively defending a claim of negligence founded around information disclosure, by recording exactly the risks and consequences of interventions discussed by the anaesthetist and the patient.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>12859468</pmid><doi>10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03202.x</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0003-2409 |
ispartof | Anaesthesia, 2003-08, Vol.58 (8), p.760-774 |
issn | 0003-2409 1365-2044 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73476053 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley Online Library Free Content; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Anaesthesia Anesthesia Anesthesia - ethics Anesthesia - standards Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy Anesthesiology - legislation & jurisprudence Biological and medical sciences consent forms England Ethics, Clinical Humans Informed consent Informed Consent - ethics Informed Consent - legislation & jurisprudence Informed Consent - standards jurisprudence Legislation Malpractice - legislation & jurisprudence Medical sciences Miscellaneous Practice Guidelines as Topic Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation |
title | Consent for anaesthesia |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T12%3A55%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Consent%20for%20anaesthesia&rft.jtitle=Anaesthesia&rft.au=White,%20S.%20M.&rft.date=2003-08&rft.volume=58&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=760&rft.epage=774&rft.pages=760-774&rft.issn=0003-2409&rft.eissn=1365-2044&rft.coden=ANASAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03202.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E73476053%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=73476053&rft_id=info:pmid/12859468&rfr_iscdi=true |