Delegating Informed Consent

Ten years ago, Megan Shinal sought the care of neurosurgeon Steven Toms for the surgical treatment of a recurrent nonmalignant tumor in the pituitary region of her brain. In their twenty-minute meeting, Shinal did not make a final decision about which surgical approach she wished to pursue. Subseque...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Koch, Valerie Gutmann (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Publié: 2017
Dans: The Hastings Center report
Année: 2017, Volume: 47, Numéro: 6, Pages: 5-6
Accès en ligne: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1937530868
003 DE-627
005 20251002055616.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 251002s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1002/hast.778  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1937530868 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1937530868 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Koch, Valerie Gutmann  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Delegating Informed Consent 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Ten years ago, Megan Shinal sought the care of neurosurgeon Steven Toms for the surgical treatment of a recurrent nonmalignant tumor in the pituitary region of her brain. In their twenty-minute meeting, Shinal did not make a final decision about which surgical approach she wished to pursue. Subsequently, she spoke with Tom's physician assistant once by phone and once in person, when she signed the consent form, which did not appear to designate which surgical approach she had chosen. During the operation—a total resection—Toms perforated Shinal's carotid artery, resulting in hemorrhage, stroke, brain injury, and partial blindness. The jury found that Toms had fulfilled his informed-consent obligations prior to performing the resection; however, in June 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned the decision, relying on the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act. The court found that the language of the act is unambiguous in its requirement that “a physician's duty to provide information to a patient sufficient to obtain her informed consent is non-delegable.” Presumably, this rule of nondelegation applies beyond the surgical theater to other major treatment decisions. And it is unclear whether it applies to other professionals in a subordinate position to the treating physician, such as residents and fellows. 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |a Hastings Center  |t The Hastings Center report  |d Malden, Mass. : Wiley, 1971  |g 47(2017), 6, Seite 5-6  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)341346551  |w (DE-600)2067369-3  |w (DE-576)258761822  |x 1552-146X  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:47  |g year:2017  |g number:6  |g pages:5-6 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.778  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hast.778  |x Verlag  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
912 |a NOMM 
935 |a mteo 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4779657040 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1937530868 
LOK |0 005 20251002055616 
LOK |0 008 251002||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2025-09-26#F667C2F4CB1F47D2D6BD902DD9BA6DDFBC4387CC 
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 ixrk  |a ixzs  |a zota  |a tiep 
ORI |a TA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw