It is largely undisputed that nurses should obtain consent prior to nursing care procedures. This article reports on a qualitative study examining the way in which nurses obtain such informed consent. Data were collected through focus group discussion and by using a critical incident technique in order to explore the way in which nurses approach consent prior to nursing care procedures. Qualified nurses in two teaching hospitals in England participated in the study. An analysis of the data provides evidence that (...) consent was often not obtained by those who participated in the study and that refusals of care were often ignored. In addition, participants were often uncertain how to proceed with care when the patient was unable to consent. Consent prior to nursing care procedures is an essential but undeveloped concept, for which a new ethos is required. (shrink)

Informed consent enjoys an unassailable position in both clinical and research situations as a safeguard of patients’ rights. Keeping the patient involved in the decision making process is easier when there is direct communication with the individual. The Pakistani milieu offers challenges to this process because crucial decision making is often done by family members or is left entirely up to the attending physician. There seems to be a general acceptance of this shifting of focus from the individual to other (...) players. This also raises certain ethical dilemmas for physicians who may feel uncomfortable with communication which excludes the patient or in accepting a paternalistic primary decision making role. The objective of this informal qualitative study was to ascertain physicians’ perceptions regarding the process of information delivery to the patient in the Pakistani context and the various influences acting upon it. (shrink)

The attitudes of patients' to consent have changed over the years, but there has been little systematic study of the attitudes of anaesthetists and surgeons in this process. We aimed to describe observations made on the attitudes of medical professionals working in the UK to issues surrounding informed consent.

Bioethics has a founding story in which medical paternalism, the interference with the autonomy of patients for their own clinical benefit, was an accepted ethical norm in the history of Western medical ethics and was widespread in clinical practice until bioethics changed the ethical norms and practice of medicine. In this paper I show that the founding story of bioethics misreads major texts in the history of Western medical ethics. I also show that a major source for empirical claims about (...) the widespread practice of medical paternalism has been misread. I then show that that bioethics based on its founding story deprofessionalizes medical ethics. The result leaves the sick exposed to the predatory power of medical practitioners and healthcare organizations with only their autonomy-based rights to non-interference, expressed in contracts, to protect them. The sick are stripped of the protection afforded by a professional, fiduciary relationship of physicians to their patients. Bioethics based on its founding story reverts to the older model of a contractual relationship between the sick and medical practitioners not worthy of intellectual or moral trust (because such trust cannot be generated by what I call ‘deprofessionalizing bioethics’). On closer examination, bioethics based on its founding story, ironically, eliminates paternalism as a moral category in bioethics, thus causing bioethics to collapse on itself because it denies one of the necessary conditions for medical paternalism. Bioethics based on its founding story should be abandoned. (shrink)

In order to prepare bioethics and clinical ethics courses for clinicians in Turkey, we needed to know the attitudes of physicians when placed in ethically difficult care situations. We presented four cases to 207 physicians who are members of the Physicians’ Association in Kocaeli, Turkey. Depending on the decisions they made in each case, we determined whether they were aware of the ethical aspects of the cases and the principles they chose as a basis for their decisions. We aimed to (...) gain information about their ethical tendencies and moral sensitivity. A small number of physicians stated that they would ‘show respect for a patient’s living will’ in the first case, but more stated that they would ‘let the patient refuse the treatment’ in the second. In the third case, where medical confidentiality was the significant ethical issue, most of the physicians said that they would act in order to maintain confidentiality. For the last case, more than half the physicians chose to ‘tell the truth’ to the patient. The paternalism shown in the doctors’ decisions on the first two cases was no longer observed in those made for the last two cases. We concluded that the physicians who participated in our study have low sensitivity to living wills (or advance directives) and patients refusing treatment. However, when issues of medical confidentiality and truth-telling are concerned, they take care to protect the autonomy of the individual and are relatively more aware of the ethical aspects of these cases. (shrink)