Informed Consent

Everyone has had moments while they're at the doctors office when they have no idea what is ailing them and all they want is answers. Nothing feels more of a relief than your physician coming in and telling you that you're are perfectly healthy. But what if we lived in a world where you were not informed of any treatments or tests that you were receiving. Informed consent defined is permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits. Treatment and informed consent can be a very complex and controversial topic. There have been many legal disputes involving treatment and informed consent. I myself believe
Some positives are that it can create a bond of mutual trust between patient and physician that can then open up the pathway of communication. It also can help patients take greater measure of responsibility in the course of their treatment by having more extensive knowledge of their condition and its impact on their personal lifestyle. Allowing the physician to care for the patient more effectively and reducing the liability exposure of the physician as well are some more positives when it comes to treatment and consent. With these positives it will make patients feel more comfortable with their physicians and help the physicians understand what treatments they can or cannot
Other methodology will include different articles and studies along with the encyclopedia to have a broad understanding as well. One court case that can be discussed is the case of Albany Urology v. Cleveland. This case came to be when an unnecessary surgery was performed by a physician who had a history of and still was using cocaine. The surgeon was using frequently at the time of the initial treatment and of the surgery, although he had not been using cocaine on days he saw patients. He kept his usage of cocaine a secret from his patients, including the patient in this case. The operation was unsuccessful and created a condition that was resolvable with the treatment of Vitamin E. The trial court found that the physician was not maliciously keeping his usage away from his patients and the hospitals. The Georgia Court of Appeals found that the failure to reveal his usage to his employer was concealment and reversed the trial court. The court also found the defendants liable for battery. The defendants appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court and the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals holding that, without a specific patient inquiry, a physician had no duty to disclose to patients “unspecified life factors” that did not objectively affect