Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to browse AJSM online!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mazur, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mazur, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Court Viewpoints and Medical Decision Making

Dennis J. Mazur, MD, PHD

Twenty-five years of appellate court decisions about informed consent in three influential states were examined to address four issues: 1) the criteria used to define adequate informed consent; 2) trends in court decisions; 3) parallels between court decision making and decision analysis; 4) the contribution of decision analytic concepts to defining "reasonable" medical informed consent. Court standards have evolved in three phases: the "medical community" standard before 1972, the "reasonable person" standard since 1972, and recent inroads toward developing an "individual preference" standard. The latter two standards form the current basis for deciding whether a patient has been adequately informed. Decision analysis offers a framework for communication about medical outcomes and probabilities, and meth ods for assessing preferences. Jurists and physicians should consider whether the legal system should adopt a decision analytic perspective in the doctrine of informed consent. Researchers should address issues raised by use of decision analysis for communication between the physician and the patient. Key words: medical ethics; patient-physician rela tionship; medical informed consent; medical risk; patient preference; legal (court) decision; professional standards; reasonable man; malpractice; negligence. (Med Decis Making 6:224- 230, 1986)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 6, No. 4, 224-230 (1986)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8600600407
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Law Med EthicsHome page
A. Piper Jr.
Truce on the Battlefield: A Proposal for a Different Approach to Medical Informed Consent
J. Law Med. Ethics, December 1, 1994; 22(4): 301 - 313.
[PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
J. F. Merz, M. J. Druzdzel, and D. J. Mazur
Verbal Expressions of Probability in Informed Consent Litigation
Med Decis Making, December 1, 1991; 11(4): 273 - 281.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
R. B. Deber and V. Goel
Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis: When Is It Not Rational to Maximize Expected Utility?
Med Decis Making, August 1, 1990; 10(3): 181 - 194.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
A. D. Allen
Making Moral Decisions on a Double-blinded Drug Trial in Progress without Breaking the Code: A Primer on Posterior Analysis
Med Decis Making, August 1, 1989; 9(3): 207 - 216.
[Abstract] [PDF]