Does the General Medical Council’s 2020 guidance on consent advance on its 2008 guidance?

The General Medical Council renewed its guidance on consent in 2020. In this essay, I argue that the 2020 guidance does not advance on the earlier, 2008 guidance in regard to treatments that doctors are obliged to offer to patients. In both, doctors are instructed to not provide treatments that are...

Полное описание

Сохранить в:  
Библиографические подробности
Главный автор: Sarela, Abeezar I. (Автор)
Формат: Электронный ресурс Статья
Язык:Английский
Проверить наличие: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Опубликовано: 2022
В: Journal of medical ethics
Год: 2022, Том: 48, Выпуск: 12, Страницы: 948-951
Online-ссылка: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1918656312
003 DE-627
005 20250226155718.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 250226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1136/medethics-2021-107347  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1918656312 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1918656312 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Sarela, Abeezar I.  |e VerfasserIn  |0 (orcid)0000-0002-7785-9732  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Does the General Medical Council’s 2020 guidance on consent advance on its 2008 guidance? 
264 1 |c 2022 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The General Medical Council renewed its guidance on consent in 2020. In this essay, I argue that the 2020 guidance does not advance on the earlier, 2008 guidance in regard to treatments that doctors are obliged to offer to patients. In both, doctors are instructed to not provide treatments that are not in the overall benefit, or clinical interests, of the patient; although, patients are absolutely entitled to decline treatment. As such, consent has two aspects, and different standards apply to each aspect. To explore this paradigm, I propose the reconceptualisation of consent as a person’s freedom to achieve treatment, using Amartya Sen’s approach. Sen explains that freedom has two aspects: process and opportunity. Accordingly, a patient’s freedom to achieve treatment would comprise a process for the identification of proper treatment, followed by an opportunity for the patient to accept or decline this treatment. As per Sen, the opportunity aspect is to be assessed by the standard of public reason, whereas the standard for the process aspect is variable and contingent on the task at hand. I then use this reconceptualised view of consent to analyse case law. I show that senior judges have conceived the patient’s opportunity to be encompassed in information, which is to be decided by public reason. On the other hand, the process aspect relies on the private reason of medical professionals. Given the nature of professionalism, this reliance is inescapable, and it is maintained in the case law that is cited in both guidances. 
601 |a General 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of medical ethics  |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975  |g 48(2022), 12, Seite 948-951  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)323607802  |w (DE-600)2026397-1  |w (DE-576)260773972  |x 1473-4257  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:48  |g year:2022  |g number:12  |g pages:948-951 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107347  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/12/948  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4673493788 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1918656312 
LOK |0 005 20250226155718 
LOK |0 008 250226||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo  |a ixrk 
OAS |a 1  |b inherited from superior work 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw