Cancer screening programmes cause harm to individuals via overdiagnosis and overtreatment, even where they confer population-level benefit. Screening thus appears to violate the principle of non-maleficence, since it entails medically unnecessary harm to individuals. Can consent to screening programmes negate the moral significance of this harm? In therapeutic medical contexts, consent is used as a means of rendering medical harm morally permissible. However, in this paper, I argue that it is unclear that the model of consent used within therapeutic medicine can be applied unproblematically to preventive medicine. Invitation to screening changes the pragmatic norms and expectations of the patient–doctor encounter such that two key principles of consent may be violated. First, the pragmatics of a medical invitation are such that patients may fail to be adequately informed, since patients appear to assume medical invitations are made with their best interests in mind, even where information to the contrary is outlined. Second, screening invitations may place pressure on patients; in the context of a medical encounter, to make an invitation to screening may constitute an inducement to accept. In order to be sure that a patient’s consent to a screening invitation is valid, we must make clear to patients that their decision to accept screening may be shaped not only by how information about screening is presented, but by the pragmatic form of the invitation itself.
- clinical ethics
- informed consent
- public health ethics
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Contributors LE drafted the manuscript and made all revisions.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study. No datasets were generated or analysed in producing this manuscript.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review
- Fair, just and compassionate: A pilot for making allocation decisions for patients requesting experimental drugs outside of clinical trials
- Temporal trend in socioeconomic inequalities in the uptake of cancer screening programmes in France between 2005 and 2010: results from the Cancer Barometer surveys
- Staff experiences of diabetes care in residential care facilities for people with severe disabilities in Denmark: a mixed-methods assessment of access to screening for diabetes complications
- To nudge or not to nudge: cancer screening programmes and the limits of libertarian paternalism
- Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?
- Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial
- Healthcare professionals’ and researchers’ understanding of cancer genetics activities: a qualitative interview study
- Geographic access to mammography screening centre and participation of women in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Programme
- Ten years’ experience of screening patients with Barrett’s oesophagus in a university teaching hospital