Abstract
The legal ramifications of the informed consent process have evolved dramatically over the past century. So too has urologic surgery rapidly changed to include some of the most advanced minimally invasive procedures available today. This ever-evolving dynamic requires the urologic surgeon to be familiar with numerous minimally invasive surgeries and have a detailed understanding of the potential risks, which often differ from similar open procedures. The surgeon must be able to process all information and then deliver this information in a concise but detailed enough manner in a language that the patient can understand, synthesize, be able to ask appropriate questions, and then decide on appropriate course of action, either acceptance or refusal. Urologists must continue to stay informed so as to provide comprehensive, clear, and legally acceptable informed consent documentation for their patients. This chapter focuses on the basics of the informed consent process and provides a framework that the urologist may use for the discussion of minimally invasive urologic surgery with their patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Court Hearing: Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital 211 NY 125, 105 NE 92. 1914.
Court Hearing: Canterbury v Spence, 464 F2d 772 (DC Cir 1972), 409 US 1064. 1972.
Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.
Meisel A, Roth LH, Lidz CW. Toward a model of the legal doctrine of informed consent. Am J Psychiatry. 1977;134(3):285–9.
American Medical Association [Internet]. Informed consent. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4608.html. Accessed Sept 2013.
American College of Surgeons [Internet]. Statement on principles. http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/stonprin.html.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations [Internet]. Hospital Accreditation Standards. Joint Commission Resources. http://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/standards.aspx.
Department of Health and Human Resources Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services [Internet]. Revisions to the hospital interpretive guidelines for informed consent. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/SurveyCertificationGenInfo/downloads/SCLetter07-17.pdf.
Federation of State Medical Boards, [Internet]. Report of the special committee on outpatient surgery. http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2002_grpol_Outpatient_Surgery.pdf.
American Urological Association [Internet]. Valid decision making: the law and ethics of informed consent or refusal. www.auanet.org.
American Medical Association [Internet]. Joint statement with American Urological Association on informed consent. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub.
rane JF. Competency to give informed consent: a model for making clinical assessments. JAMA. 1984;252(7):925–7.
Fahlenkamp D, Rassweiler J, Fornara R, Frede T, Loening SA. Complications of laparoscopic procedures in urology: experience with 2407 procedures at 4 German centers. J Urol. 1999;162:765–70.
Parsons JK, Varkarakis I, Rha KH, Jarrett TW, Pinto PA, Kavoussi LR. Complications of abdominal urologic laparoscopy: longitudinal five-year analysis. Urology. 2004;63(1):27–32.
Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Doublet JD, Guillonneau B. Complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: review of 1,311 procedures at a single center. J Urol. 2002;168(1):23–6.
Wolf JS, Marcovich R, Gill IS, Sung GT, Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV, Polascik TJ. Survey of neuromuscular injuries to the patient and surgeon during urologic laparoscopic surgery. Urology. 2000;55(6):831–6.
Abdel-Meguid T, Gomella L. Prevention and management of complications. St. Louis: Quality Medical Publishing; 1996.
Secin FP, Jiborn T, Bjartell AS, Fournier G, Salomon L, Abbou CC, et al. Multi-institutional study of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in prostate cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(1):134–45.
Forest JB, Clemens JQ, Leveillee R, Lippert M, Pisters L, Touijer K, et al. Best practice policy statement for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in patients undergoing urologic surgery. 2008.
Montgomery JS, Wolf JS. Venous thrombosis prophylaxis for urological laparoscopy: fractionated heparin versus sequential compression devices. J Urol. 2005;173(5):1623–6.
Lavery HJ, Thaly R, Albala D, Ahlering T, Shalhav A, Lee D, et al. Robotic equipment malfunction during robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study. J Endourol. 2008;22(9):2165–8.
Edwards WS, Yahne C, Thomas G. Orr memorial lecture: surgical informed consent: what it is and is not. Am J Surg. 1987;154:574–8.
Sahai A, Kucheria R, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P. Video consent: a pilot study of informed consent in laparoscopic urology and its impact on patient satisfaction. JSLS. 2006;10(1):21–5.
Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:553–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thom, M.R., Winfield, H.N. (2015). Informed Consent in Minimally Invasive Urology. In: Best, S., Nakada, S. (eds) Minimally Invasive Urology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1317-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1317-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1316-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1317-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)