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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Anaesthesia 2003-08, Vol.58 (8), p.760-774
Hauptverfasser: White, S. M., Baldwin, T. J.
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 &amp; jurisprudence ; Biological and medical sciences ; consent forms ; England ; Ethics, Clinical ; Humans ; Informed consent ; Informed Consent - ethics ; Informed Consent - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Informed Consent - standards ; jurisprudence ; Legislation ; Malpractice - legislation &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Informed Consent - standards</subject><subject>jurisprudence</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Malpractice - legislation &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Informed Consent - standards</topic><topic>jurisprudence</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Malpractice - legislation &amp; 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