The truth about informed consent
The Happy Hospitalist tells it like it is:
[W]arnings…are so ubiquitous in our country, they are there for protection from hungry lawyers, not to protect the public.
I view informed consent documentation as the same way. The doc or nurse spits out a bunch of medical jargon, stuff that nobody understands except doctors and nurses. Then hands a sheet of paper to the patient with 3 three pages of fine print and says sign this.
Of course, it’s a time consuming worthless process. In five years, I have never had anyone ask a question about the informed consent process. It’s a process that masquerades as a patient centered initiative.
So true. It’s amazing how much of medical practice is now related to medicolegal risk reduction. Of course, another way to reduce medicolegal risk is to simply dismiss patients who in a saner time and place would simply be considered a bit annoying or eccentric. It’s one of those unintended but in retrospect logical and even inevitable consequences of having a hyperlegalized society. Along the same lines, there is some evidence that the Americans with Disabilities Act actually impaired the ability of disabled men to find employment. Actions have consequences.
This entry was posted on January 3, 2009 at 9:11 pm and is filed under Medicolegal with tags Americans with Disabilities Act, Informed Consent. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.