Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Medical Decision-Making

Abstract

In law, with rare exception such as legislative action, change is evolutionary and methodical. Unlike biomedical science where a breakthrough can quickly lead to dramatic changes in medical practice, legal precedent is more adherent and must evolve either through the legislative process or on a court by court basis in case law. Nevertheless, compelling evidence will pave the road to change within the law. Health care research conducted over the last three decades has produced a body of empirical evidence that suggests an overhaul of our current legal standards of informed consent is overdue.This article uses health services research to examine the fundamental assumptions of our current informed consent laws and propose legal reform. Much has been written on how to bring the law to bear on medical practice in order to improve patient rights and protect physicians, but far less has been done to bring the practice of medicine to inform our legal standards. Prior legal scholarship on informed consent has made arguments regarding reform from both ethical and legal perspectives; however, only a small few have incorporated clinical and health services research as well as ethical and legal principles to analyze informed consent.

How to Integrate the Electronic Health Record and Patient-Centered Communication Into the Medical Visit: A Skills-Based Approach

“…Research has shown that patient involvement in treatment planning improves adherence and patient outcomes. 68,69 Collaboration with the patient is also linked to decreased unnecessary testing, increased patient satisfaction, and fewer malpractice claims 70,71 (Table 5). …”

Re-thinking shared decision-making: Context matters

“…(8;9) SDM is also advocated for ethical reasons (10;11), with a patient's involvement in his or her health care described as a fundamental right. (12) Part of the ethical argument concerns patients' rights to be informed about and consent to treatments, based on individual autonomy and bodily integrity (13). SDM moves beyond informed consent, which is primarily a legal obligation that does not necessarily seek to ensure comprehension of treatment goals and options, risks, and benefits.…”

Shared decision-making in back pain consultations: an illusion or reality?

“…Although the effect of SDM on clinical outcomes is far from conclusive, adherence has been shown to be greater where patients mutually agreed decisions with clinicians [11]. Finally, cost savings are implicated [12] and care providers more likely to be protected from litigation where SDM is used [13].…”