Lead Query: Is informed consent necessary for the morality of medicine and healthcare?
My major claim is that Informed consent is a necessary, essential process in which communication between physician and patient is encouraged. It also helps to give confidence to the patient during the decision making process. Robert M. Arnold and Charles W Lidz assert in the opening statement of their ?yes' argument that: "Informed Consent in clinical care is an essential process that promotes good communication and patient autonomy despite the obstacles of implementation."[Arnold, Lidz, Pg 2]
I think that the informed consent is not only the piece of paper the patient is asked to sign, but a decision that should be weighted very carefully. It should only be given after very careful consideration and after there is an appreciation and understanding of the facts given. The patient should be made aware of not only the benefits, but also the demerits. In other words the patient should be made aware of the implications of their decisions, which would then be based on the intimate understanding of the facts.
It used to be that patients trusted their doctors completely and had absolute confidence in whatever decisions were made for them, but these days the doors of communication are now 2-way streets and the patient's right to autonomy is encouraged.
"The concept that medical decision making should rely exclusively on the physician's expertise has been replaced by a model in which healthcare professionals share information and discuss alternatives with patients who then make the ultimate decisions about treatment." [Arnold, Lidz, pg 4]
Onora O'Neill, in her "No" argument asserts that although the informed consent helps to educate the patie ...