记录病人的决策过程:对同意法发展的回顾。

Mohsin I Choudry, Aishah Latif, Leslie Hamilton, Bertie Leigh
{"title":"记录病人的决策过程:对同意法发展的回顾。","authors":"Mohsin I Choudry,&nbsp;Aishah Latif,&nbsp;Leslie Hamilton,&nbsp;Bertie Leigh","doi":"10.7861/futurehosp.3-2-109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The doctor's role involves helping patients to understand their condition, including the anticipated benefits and risks of proposed treatments or omissions to treat. In order to treat, doctors require consent from patients but the duty to advise is equally strong if conservative management is appropriate. The recent judgement in the case of <i>Montgomery</i> has set a precedent for patient autonomy. However, doctors are still required to judge what risks they should disclose in their reasonable assessment of that patient and their specific situation. The General Medical Council reflects a consensus that the empowered autonomous patient is more likely to be satisfied with their clinical outcome than the passive victim of medical paternalism. Doctors, regardless of specialty, must counsel their patients adequately, paying particular attention to identifying material risks that are likely to be significant to their case.</p>","PeriodicalId":92635,"journal":{"name":"Future hospital journal","volume":"3 2","pages":"109-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6465837/pdf/futurehosp-3-2-109.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Documenting the process of patient decision making: a review of the development of the law on consent.\",\"authors\":\"Mohsin I Choudry,&nbsp;Aishah Latif,&nbsp;Leslie Hamilton,&nbsp;Bertie Leigh\",\"doi\":\"10.7861/futurehosp.3-2-109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The doctor's role involves helping patients to understand their condition, including the anticipated benefits and risks of proposed treatments or omissions to treat. In order to treat, doctors require consent from patients but the duty to advise is equally strong if conservative management is appropriate. The recent judgement in the case of <i>Montgomery</i> has set a precedent for patient autonomy. However, doctors are still required to judge what risks they should disclose in their reasonable assessment of that patient and their specific situation. The General Medical Council reflects a consensus that the empowered autonomous patient is more likely to be satisfied with their clinical outcome than the passive victim of medical paternalism. Doctors, regardless of specialty, must counsel their patients adequately, paying particular attention to identifying material risks that are likely to be significant to their case.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92635,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future hospital journal\",\"volume\":\"3 2\",\"pages\":\"109-113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6465837/pdf/futurehosp-3-2-109.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future hospital journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7861/futurehosp.3-2-109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future hospital journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7861/futurehosp.3-2-109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

医生的角色包括帮助病人了解他们的病情,包括预期的益处和建议治疗的风险或遗漏治疗。为了治疗,医生需要得到病人的同意,但如果保守治疗是合适的,医生也有义务提供建议。最近对蒙哥马利一案的判决为病人自主开创了先例。然而,医生仍然需要在对病人及其具体情况的合理评估中判断他们应该披露哪些风险。医学总委员会反映了一种共识,即被授权自主的患者比医疗家长式作风的被动受害者更有可能对其临床结果感到满意。医生,无论其专业如何,都必须向患者提供充分的咨询,特别注意识别可能对其病例有重大影响的重大风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Documenting the process of patient decision making: a review of the development of the law on consent.

The doctor's role involves helping patients to understand their condition, including the anticipated benefits and risks of proposed treatments or omissions to treat. In order to treat, doctors require consent from patients but the duty to advise is equally strong if conservative management is appropriate. The recent judgement in the case of Montgomery has set a precedent for patient autonomy. However, doctors are still required to judge what risks they should disclose in their reasonable assessment of that patient and their specific situation. The General Medical Council reflects a consensus that the empowered autonomous patient is more likely to be satisfied with their clinical outcome than the passive victim of medical paternalism. Doctors, regardless of specialty, must counsel their patients adequately, paying particular attention to identifying material risks that are likely to be significant to their case.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shifting the focus: A QI project to improve the management of delirium in patients with hip fracture. Raising concerns in the current NHS climate: a qualitative study exploring junior doctors' attitudes to training and teaching. Freedom to speak up - the role of freedom to speak up guardians and the National Guardian's Office in England. Development of a GMC aligned curriculum for internal medicine including a qualitative study of the acceptability of 'capabilities in practice' as a curriculum model. Flipped learning: Turning medical education upside down.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1