Still on the Same Slope: Groningen Breaks No New Ethical Ground

Hanson, Stephen S.

doi:10.1080/15265160802513143

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since there are differing viewpoints on what is considered to be a good life and good death, the only method to determine what treatment will be in the best interest of a competent individual is to obtain their well-informed consent and the Canterbury v. Spence case makes it clear. It should be the patient's choice, not the physician's, to determine where the patient's interest lies based off the information that is given to him or her (Hanson, 2009). This case was a progressive move because prior to its ruling health professionals were only sharing information that they believed patients needed to know in order to make a decision (Bersoff, 2008).…”

Section: Initial Use Of Informed Consent In Practice/field Of Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

The History and Current Status of Informed Consent

Farinde¹

2014

IJSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to examine the process of informed consent as it relates to the practice of psychology and as a part of Human relations Standards (3.10) of the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Before a psychologist provides any type of psychological service to a client/patient, whether it involves conducting research, administering a test or assessment/ therapy, counseling, clinical supervision, or providing consulting services, he or she must ensure that informed consent is obtained (oral, written, or other methods). This information must be delivered using language that is reasonably understandable to a competent individual. The term reasonably understandable describes the level of complexity and completeness that is required of psychologist when obtaining informed consent. The process of informed consent implies that a patient/client is made fully aware of the purpose as to why a service is being provided, the intended use of the information, and the benefits and risks associated with the process, involvement of any third parties, and limits and risks of confidentiality. It is recognized as a decision-making process where a psychologist communicates sufficient information to a potential client/patient so that he or she is able to make a well-informed decision as to whether they will participate in the professional relationship. If any information is taken during the session whether it is written, video, or audio, the client/patient is to be made aware of how this information will be used, if it will be released or disclosed to others a formal writing is to be provided indicating who these individuals will be. While the informed consent process is recognized as an important aspect for any psychologist to cover when it involves providing any type of service to a client this can often times be neglected which places the psychologists in jeopardy for lawsuits or loss of licensure. The informed consent process, is just that, a process, and not a single event not only protects the privacy rights of the client/patient but safeguards the psychologist from being liable in the case that a client/patient reports they were not adequately informed about a psychological service.

show abstract

Section: Initial Use Of Informed Consent In Practice/field Of Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

The History and Current Status of Informed Consent

Farinde¹

2014

IJSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, it remains to be asked whether life-sustaining treatment is justifiable when it turns out that the child in question is facing a life in very poor quality (Walther 2005). In this line of reasoning, the Dutch Groningen Protocol (Verhagen and Sauer 2005a;Verhagen and Sauer 2005b) has provoked a worldwide debate concerning the question whether it is sometimes, in very exceptional cases, justified to terminate the life of severely ill newborns (Hanson 2009;Jotkowitz et al 2008;Kodish 2008;Kon 2008;Lindemann and Verkerk 2008;Kon 2007;Chervenak et al 2006;Manninen 2006;Feudtner 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Birth to Death? A Personalist Approach to End-of-Life Care of Severely Ill Newborns

Gastmans¹,

Naulaers²,

Vanhole³

et al. 2013

Christian Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, a personalist ethical perspective on end-of-life care of severely ill newborns is presented, by posing two questions. (1) Is it ethically justified to decide not to start or to withdraw life-sustaining treatment in severely ill newborns? And (2), is it ethically justified, in exceptional cases, to actively terminate the life of severely ill newborns?Based on five valuesrespect for life and for the dignity of the human person, quality of life, respect for the process of dying, relational autonomy, and justicean ethical assessment is conducted that brings us to an answer to the two ethical questions. (1) Noninitiation or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in severely ill newborns is ethically acceptable, and might even be a moral duty, when initiation or continuing of medical treatment can be considered as futile or even harmful. (2) However, according to the personalist approach, it is not ethically acceptable to actively terminate the life of a severely ill newborn.

show abstract

Still on the Same Slope: Groningen Breaks No New Ethical Ground

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

The History and Current Status of Informed Consent

The History and Current Status of Informed Consent

From Birth to Death? A Personalist Approach to End-of-Life Care of Severely Ill Newborns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About