Article info
PDFLaw and ethics
Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns
- Correspondence to: Dr R Worthington, Medicines Policy Unit, Department of Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology, St George’s Hospital Medical School, London SW17 0RE, UK; rworthin{at}sghms.ac.uk
Citation
Clinical issues on consent: some philosophical concerns
Publication history
- Accepted June 28, 2002
- Revised June 24, 2002
- First published December 1, 2002.
Online issue publication
December 01, 2002
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Copyright 2002 by the Journal of Medical Ethics
Other content recommended for you
- The role of law in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity: a cross-sectional study
- Guideline for obtaining valid consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures
- The do-not-resuscitate order: associations with advance directives, physician specialty and documentation of discussion 15 years after the Patient Self-Determination Act
- Advance directives and end-of-life decisions in Switzerland: role of patients, relatives and health professionals
- An audit of “do not attempt resuscitation” decisions in two district general hospitals: do current guidelines need changing?
- Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: a joint statement from the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (UK) and the Royal College of Nursing
- Parenteral nutrition: ethical and legal considerations
- Evolving legal responses to dependence on families in New Zealand and Singapore healthcare
- Determinants of completion of advance directives: a cross-sectional comparison of 649 outpatients from private practices versus 2158 outpatients from a university clinic
- Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?