0
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What if Dr bob is preparing to operate on a patient with a life threatening condition he learns the patient is 17 her parents are in the waiting room discuss informed consent?
If Dr. Bob can get informed consent without jeopardizing the life of the patient then he should do so. If stopping to get consent will risk the life of the patient then he should consider the consent implied and save the life.
Informed consent should be a process rather than a one-time event true or false?
True, informed consent should be a process rather than a one-time event, since there are likely to be more than one aspect of a medical treatment about which a patient will need to be informed, and which will require consent.
Informed consent should be a process rather than a one-time event?
should informed consent be a process rather than a one time event
How can you prove that the patient gave informed consent?
Informed consent can be either explicit or implicit; in either case, it is subject to judgement. Consider these examples: A dentist tells a patient that a tooth has to be extracted. By sitting in the chair and opening his mouth upon command, the patient, by implication, consents to the extraction. A physician tells a patient that the mole on her arm should be biopsied. By presenting her arm for the biopsy, the patient gives implied consent to the procedure. Is it necessary, in either of these cases, to obtain written consent which details all of the options, and the pros, cons, and costs of each? By obtaining written consent, are the dentist and physician absolved from liability? By being informed, can the patient be assured that all possible outcomes have been illuminated? What's the expression: "A grand jury can indict a ham sandwich." With or without informed consent, everyone is liable and no one is assured. As a rule, "routine," uncomplicated procedures are performed without first obtaining formal, written consent because, by implication, the patient consents by allowing the procedure to be performed. Usually, formal, written consent is sought in cases that involve considerable risk (death, e.g.) or unknown consequences (e.g., treatments whose outcomes are inconsistent). In the former instance, the patient's behavior is sufficient proof, formal evidence of disclosure being unnecessary; in the latter, it would, in the least, be prudent to obtain formal, written consent. Regardless of the situation, I dare say all practitioners, clinics, or hospitals appreciate the fact that proof of informed consent proves very little and is a meager barrier to litigation.
When should implied consent apply?
Implied consent applies to the unconscious patient - if the patient were conscious they would want your help.
Are do not resuscitate and do not intubate the same thing?
This is a great question. Unless the form specifically allows for "partial DNR" then a full DNR includes DNI when the patient has cardiac or respiratory arrest. The question is more complicated when the patient is not a cardiac or respiratory arrest and the doctor wants to intubate. Then the question is really why isn't that doctor getting prior consent. A DNI presumes the right to act without consent (like CPR) In every other invasive treatment or procedure, informed consent is required beforehand so should it be with intubation (unless the patient is in cardiac/respiratory arrest). Doctors seem to use the "emergency exception" to the informed consent rule for emergency intubation (if we don't intubate the patient will go into respiratory arrest) But that may be inconsistent with the patients real spirit of the patient's DNR so in those circumstances, I think the doctor should really be getting the patient's next of kin (or medical POA) to consent or refuse consent (consistent with the DNR).
What kind of information should you share with your patient before proceeding with medical treatment in order for the consent to be considered informed?
the "informed consent" should consist of : 1.) procedure to be performed 2.) location of performance of planned procedure 3.) signature of physician 4.) signature of patient 5.) signature of "witness" (this could be parent/guardian if pt. is a minor, or perhaps the doctor's assistant.....someone in room who witnesses the signatures being written) Just so you know, and this is what confuses ALOT of patients....the informed consent DOES NOT have to itemize any possible complications or side effects of the planned procedure!!!
Should i show my patient their xrays?
Yes. A patient should be fully informed of their medical condition and all treatment should be explained.
Should informed consent should be a process rather than a one time event?
Yes
Consent to give first aid must be obtained from every victim who is?
Conscious. An unconscious victim is assumed to want first aid assistance, since they are incapable of giving consent.Consent must be attained before a rescuer may touch a patient. Failure to do so can result in prosecution from the patient.Given consent - The adult, (18+), patient that is conscious can give consent directly but a parent or legal guardian must give consent for a conscious minor or a mentally handicapped patient.Implied consent - The unconscious patient can be helped without consent but a rescuer should ask / look for their next of kin first.
What are the physicians' requirements for written consent?
Physicians are typically required to obtain written consent from patients before performing medical procedures, particularly those that involve higher risks or significant consequences. This process ensures that patients have been fully informed about the procedure, its potential risks, benefits, and alternatives before giving their consent. Written consent forms should be clear, detailed, and include all relevant information to demonstrate that the patient has made an informed decision.
What should the physician do if patient refuses to sign the immunization consent form?
He/She should terminate (or discharge) the patient.
