Skip to main content
  • 797 Accesses

A brief review of the evolution of informed consent law will provide an understanding of the current status of the physician’s duties with respect to disclosure. The writings of Hippocrates, one of the earliest to discuss professional conduct, include phrases such as “concealing most things from the patient” and “revealing nothing of the patient’s future or present condition.” In that authoritarian age patients were expected to be obeisant, and the purpose of physician–patient communication was solely to persuade the patient to accept therapy. de Mondeville, a medieval physician, believed hope to be of sufficient therapeutic benefit to justify avoiding the truth. He advised, “Promise a cure to the patient but tell parents or friends of any danger.” In the nineteenth century, Benjamin Rush wrote, “Educate the patient about his condition.” His purpose for patient education was to motivate compliance with the advice of the physician. Although Rush thus proposed an informed patient decision, he was not an advocate of consent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:61.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jones WHS: Hippocrates. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1923:297-299.

    Google Scholar 

  3. de Mondeville H. On the morals and etiquette of surgeons. In: Rieser SJ, Dyck AJ, Curran WJ, eds. Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  4. R ush B. On the vices and virtues of physicians. A lecture delivered November 2, 1801. In: Sixteen Introductory Lectures. Philadelphia: Bradford and Innskeep; 1811:123-125.

    Google Scholar 

  5. R osenberg AR, Goldsmith LS. Malpractice Made Easy. New York: Magazines for Industry; 1976:12.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals, 211 N.Y. 128, 105 N.E. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees, 317 P.2d 170, 181 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Natanson v. Kline, 186 Kan. 393, 350 P.2d at 1104.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Truman v. Thomas, 165 Cal. Rptr. 308, 611 P.2d at 10.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:101.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Curren W. Consent law leaves physicians in limbo. AMA Medical News May 10, 1985:10.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rozofsky FA. Consent to Treatment: A Practical Guide. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984:xxxv.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bettman JW. Ophthalmology: The Art, the Law, and a Little Bit of Science. Birmingham, AL: Aesculapius; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Priluk IA, Robertson DM, Buettner H. What patients recall of the preoperative discussion after retinal detachment surgery. Am J Ophthalmol 1797;87:620-623.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Robinson G, Merav A. Informed consent: recall by patients tested preoperatively. Ann Thorac Surg 1976;22:209-212.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Leeb D, Bowers DG Jr, Lynch JB. Observations on the myth of “informed consent.” J Plast Reconstr Surg 1976;58:280-282.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rozofsky JD. Consent to Treatment: A Practical Guide. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984:634.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:35-39

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rozofsky JD. Consent to Treatment: A Practical Guide. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984:634-642.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kraushar MF, Steinberg JA. Informed Consent: Surrender or Salvation? Arch Ophthalmol 1986;104:352-355.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alton WG. Malpractice: A Trial Lawyer’s Advice for Physicians. Boston: Little Brown; 1977:180.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986:307.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kraushar, M.F. (2008). Informed Consent. In: Kraushar, M.F. (eds) Risk Prevention in Ophthalmology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73341-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73341-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73340-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73341-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics