Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Ethics of Innovation in Neurosurgery pp 11–25Cite as

Informed Consent for Neurosurgical Innovation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 346 Accesses

Abstract

While innovation in neurosurgery introduces novel medical devices, lifesaving therapies, and critical advancements in procedural care, it also presents ethical challenges regarding informed consent, particularly as innovative treatment options may provide better patient outcomes, but unprecedented surgical interventions may include unknown risk. The process of informed consent relies on appropriate provision of information to a competent patient in efforts to permit patient autonomy over healthcare decision-making without coercion. Importantly, informed consent is not isolated to a single conversation and document signing but is rather an ongoing process of communication throughout the trajectory of the patient’s care. However, neurosurgical patients are one of the most vulnerable populations, as those eligible for experimental procedures often have illnesses refractory to standard therapies, and alternative treatments may be limited. Furthermore, for disease processes affecting information processing or the ability to participate in high-level cognitive decision-making, an individual’s capacity to partake in informed consent may be hindered. At present, there is limited guidance for how neurosurgeons should approach the informed consent process for novel treatments, and there is controversy over the extent to which a surgeon should discuss the innovative nature of the procedure, the evidence or lack thereof, the associated or unknown risks and benefits, the operating surgeon’s learning curve with respect to experience with the procedure, and the alternative treatment options. This chapter summarizes the importance and difficulties of informed consent within neurosurgery, including patient capacity, content and format of discussion, and coercion—all key factors in the attainment of proper consent and the clinical decision process. We underscore the inherent complexity in balancing scientific evidence, clinical expertise, and patient and family preference when pursuing innovative neurosurgical treatments, in efforts to bring about discussion on improvements we can make within the field. Ultimately, this moral discourse is invaluable in creating a situation where investigators assume a responsibility of ensuring respect for persons, beneficence, and justice as we work to propel the field of neurosurgery forward.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Reardon DA, Wen PY, Wucherpfennig KW, Sampson JH. Immunomodulation for glioblastoma. Curr Opin Neurol. 2017;30(3):361–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiedermann JP, Joshi AS, Jamshidi A, Conchenour C, Preciado D. Utilization of a submental island flap and 3D printed model for skull base reconstruction: infantile giant cranio-cervicofacial teratoma. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;92:143–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Keshavarzi S, Meltzer H, Ben-Haim S, Newman CB, Lawson JD, Levy ML, et al. Initial clinical experience with frameless optically guided stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy in pediatric patients. Childs Nerv Syst. 2009;25:837–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wong JM, Perry WR, Greenberg Y, Ho AL, Lipsitz SR, Goumnerova LC, et al. Integrating cerebrospinal fluid shunt quality checks into the World Health Organization’s safe surgery checklist: a pilot study. World Neurosurg. 2016;92:491–498.e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berg JW, Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW, Parker LS. Informed consent: legal theory and clinical practice. Systems and Psychosocial Advances Research Center Publications and Presentations, 2001;121:3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Appelbaum PS. Clinical practice. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1834–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Appelbaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319:1635–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marson D, Ingram KK. Competency to consent to treatment: a growing field of research: commentary. J Ethics Law Aging. 1996;2:59–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Okonkwo O, Griffith HR, Belue K, Lanza S, Zamrini EY, Harrell LE, et al. Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2007;69:1528–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kerrigan S, Erridge S, Liaquat I, Graham C, Grant R. Mental incapacity in patients undergoing neuro-oncologic treatment: a cross-sectional study. Neurology. 2014;83:537–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Triebel KL, Martin RC, Nabors LB, Marson DC. Medical decision-making capacity in patients with malignant glioma. Neurology. 2009;73:2086–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernstein M. Neuro-oncology: under-recognized mental incapacity in brain tumour patients. Nat Rev Neurol. 2014;10:487–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SY, Marson DC. Assessing decisional capacity in patients with brain tumors. Neurology. 2014;83:482–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kirsch B, Bernstein M. Ethical challenges with awake craniotomy for tumor. Can J Neurol Sci. 2012;39:78–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taphoorn MJ, Klein M. Cognitive deficits in adult patients with brain tumours. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3:159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dymek MP, Atchison P, Harrell L, Marson DC. Competency to consent to medical treatment in cognitively impaired patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurology. 2001;56:17–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Beloucif S. Informed consent for special procedures: electroconvulsive therapy and psychosurgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013;26:182–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carroll D, O’Callaghan MA. Regulating, psychosurgery: ethical, social and scientific considerations. Med Law. 1984;3:193–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hundert EM. Autonomy, informed consent, and psychosurgery. J Clin Ethics. 1994;5:264–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mandarelli G, Moscati FM, Venturini P, Ferracuti S. Informed consent and neuromodulation techniques for psychiatric purposes: an introduction. Riv Psichiatr. 2013;48:285–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rappaport ZH. Psychosurgery in the modern era: therapeutic and ethical aspects. Med Law. 1992;11:449–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stagno SJ, Smith ML, Hassenbusch SJ. Reconsidering “psychosurgery”: issues of informed consent and physician responsibility. J Clin Ethics. 1994;5:217–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ramirez C, Blonski M, Belin C, Carpentier A, Taillia H. Brain metastasis: clinical and cognitive assessments. Bull Cancer. 2013;100:83–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Oishi H, Yamamoto M, Nonaka S, Arai H. Systematic review of complications for proper informed consent: (10) endovascular therapy for unruptured intracranial aneurysms. No Shinkei Geka. 2013;41:907–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gerstenecker A, Duff K, Meneses K, Fiveash JB, Nabors LB, Triebel KL. Cognitive predictors of reasoning through treatment decisions in patients with newly diagnosed brain metastases. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2015;21:412–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Palmer BW, Savla GN. The association of specific neuropsychological deficits with capacity to consent to research or treatment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007;13:1047–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cote DJ, Balak N, Brennum J, Holsgrove DT, Kitchen N, Kolenda H, et al. Ethical difficulties in the innovative surgical treatment of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurosurg. 2017;126:2045–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kahn JP, Mastroianni AC, Sugarman J. Beyond consent: seeking justice in research, in. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bernat JL. Clinical ethics and the law. In: Bernat JL, editor. Ethical issues in neurology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vyshka G, Seferi A, Myftari K, Halili V. Last call for informed consent: confused proxies in extra-emergency conditions. Indian J Med Ethics. 2014;11:252–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Adelman EE, Zahuranec DB. Surrogate decision making in neurocritical care. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2012;18:655–8.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ellamushi HE, Khan R, Kitchen ND. Consent to surgery in a high risk specialty: a prospective audit. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82:213–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Reinert C, Kremmler L, Burock S, Bogdahn U, Wick W, Gleiter CH, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of study-related patient information sheets in randomised neuro-oncology phase III-trials. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:150–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. ACOG Committee on Ethics. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 352: innovative practice: ethical guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1589–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM, Altman DG, et al. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:1089–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Beard JD. Comment on: “When does the “Learning curve” of innovative interventions become questionable practice”?, P. Healey and J. Samanta, Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2008;36:253-257. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;37:121; author reply 121–122.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Biffl WL, Spain DA, Reitsma AM, Minter RM, Upperman J, Wilson M, et al. Responsible development and application of surgical innovations: a position statement of the Society of University Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206:1204–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Burger I, Sugarman J, Goodman SN. Ethical issues in evidence-based surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2006;86:151–68, x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gates GA. Surgical innovation and research. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129:1352–3; author reply 1354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gillett G. Ethics of surgical innovation. Br J Surg. 2001;88:897–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gillett GR. Innovative treatments: ethical requirements for evaluation. J Clin Neurosci. 1998;5:378–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson J, Rogers W, Lotz M, Townley C, Meyerson D, Tomossy G. Ethical challenges of innovative surgery: a response to the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2010;376:1113–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Klein E. Eloquent brain, ethical challenges: functional brain mapping in neurosurgery. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2015;36:291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee Char SJ, Hills NK, Lo B, Kirkwood KS. Informed consent for innovative surgery: a survey of patients and surgeons. Surgery. 2013;153:473–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lotz M. Surgical innovation as sui generis surgical research. Theor Med Bioeth. 2013;34:447–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mastroianni AC. Liability, regulation and policy in surgical innovation: the cutting edge of research and therapy. Health Matrix Clevel. 2006;16:351–442.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. McKneally MF. The ethics of innovation: Columbus and others try something new. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:863–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Moore FD. Ethical problems special to surgery: surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in managed care. Arch Surg. 2000;135:14–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Neugebauer EA, Becker M, Buess GF, Cuschieri A, Dauben HP, Fingerhut A, et al. EAES recommendations on methodology of innovation management in endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1594–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Strasberg SM, Ludbrook PA. Who oversees innovative practice? Is there a structure that meets the monitoring needs of new techniques? J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196:938–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sussman MD. Ethical requirements that must be met before the introduction of new procedures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;(378):15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Wall LL, Brown D. The perils of commercially driven surgical innovation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(30):e31–4.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Qualms about innovative surgery. Lancet. 1985;1:149.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Healey P, Samanta J. When does the ‘learning curve’ of innovative interventions become questionable practice? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;36:253–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Knight JL. Ethics: the dark side of surgical innovation. Innovations (Phila). 2012;7:307–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lieberman JR, Wenger N. New technology and the orthopaedic surgeon: are you protecting your patients? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(429):338–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tan VK, Chow PK. An approach to the ethical evaluation of innovative surgical procedures. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2011;40:26–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang Y, Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Applying the concepts of innovation strategies to plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132:483–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Angelos P. The ethical challenges of surgical innovation for patient care. Lancet. 2010;376:1046–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Angelos P. Ethics and surgical innovation: challenges to the professionalism of surgeons. Int J Surg. 2013;11(Suppl 1):S2–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Miller ME, Siegler M, Angelos P. Ethical issues in surgical innovation. World J Surg. 2014;38:1638–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shinebourne EA. Ethics of innovative cardiac surgery. Br Heart J. 1984;52:597–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Taylor PL. Overseeing innovative therapy without mistaking it for research: a function-based model based on old truths, new capacities, and lessons from stem cells. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38:286–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ethics Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Moving innovation to practice: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:39–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Jones JW, McCullough LB, Richman BW. Ethics of surgical innovation to treat rare diseases. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:918–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Levin AV. IOLs, innovation, and ethics in pediatric ophthalmology: let’s be honest. J AAPOS. 2002;6:133–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Morgenstern L. Position statement: surgical innovations. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:786; author reply 786.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, Itala A, Joukainen A, Nurmi H, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2515–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Unger CA, Barber MD. Studying surgical innovations: challenges of the randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:573–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Honeybul S, O’Hanlon S, Ho KM, Gillett G. The influence of objective prognostic information on the likelihood of informed consent for decompressive craniectomy: a study of Australian anaesthetists. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39:659–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Wells RE. To tell the truth, the whole truth, may do patients harm: the problem of the nocebo effect for informed consent. Am J Bioeth. 2012;12:22–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Amanzio M, Corazzini LL, Vase L, Benedetti F. A systematic review of adverse events in placebo groups of anti-migraine clinical trials. Pain. 2009;146:261–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Rief W, Avorn J, Barsky AJ. Medication-attributed adverse effects in placebo groups: implications for assessment of adverse effects. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:155–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Krupp W, Spanehl O, Laubach W, Seifert V. Informed consent in neurosurgery: patients’ recall of preoperative discussion. Acta Neurochir. 2000;142:233–8; discussion 238–239.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Daugherty CK. Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1601–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Rozmovits L, Khu KJ, Osman S, Gentili F, Guha A, Bernstein M. Information gaps for patients requiring craniotomy for benign brain lesion: a qualitative study. J Neuro-Oncol. 2010;96:241–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Wozniak RH. Classics in the history of psychology—introduction to Ebbinghaus. Bristol: Thoemmes Press; 1999. p. 1885/1913.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Harel R, Pfeffer R, Levin D, Shekel E, Epstein D, Tsvang L, et al. Spine radiosurgery: lessons learned from the first 100 treatment sessions. Neurosurg Focus. 2017;42:E3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. van der Linden W. Pitfalls in randomized surgical trials. Surgery. 1980;87:258–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Silva PS, Pereira P, Monteiro P, Silva PA, Vaz R. Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35:E7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Chi F, Wang Y, Lin Y, Ge J, Qiu Y, Guo L. A learning curve of endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma. J Craniofac Surg. 2013;24:2064–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Shikary T, Andaluz N, Meinzen-Derr J, Edwards C, Theodosopoulos P, Zimmer LA. Operative learning curve after transition to endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;102:608–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Bilotta F, Titi L, Lanni F, Stazi E, Rosa G. Training anesthesiology residents in providing anesthesia for awake craniotomy: learning curves and estimate of needed case load. J Clin Anesth. 2013;25:359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Physician’s experience as an element of informed consent - Johnson v. Kokemoor, in Wisconsin SCo (ed). 545 N.W.2d 495, 199 Wis. 2d 615 (Wi): VersusLaw Inc.; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Banja JD. Disclosure of experience as a risk factor in informed consent for neurosurgery: the case of Johnson v. Kokemoor. Virtual Mentor. 2015;17:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Bernstein M. Conflict of interest: it is ethical for an investigator to also be the primary care-giver in a clinical trial. J Neuro-Oncol. 2003;63:107–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Backous DD, Pham HT. Guiding patients through the choices for treating vestibular schwannomas: balancing options and ensuring informed consent. Otolaryngol Clin N Am. 2007;40:521–40, viii–ix.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Robertson FC, Logsdon JL, Dasenbrock HH, Yan SC, Raftery SM, Smith TR, et al. Transitional care services: a quality and safety process improvement program in neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 2018;128(5):1570–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ford PJ. Vulnerable brains: research ethics and neurosurgical patients. J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37:73–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. McKneally MF. Ethical problems in surgery: innovation leading to unforeseen complications. World J Surg. 1999;23:786–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Bracken-Roche D, Bell E, Karpowicz L, Racine E. Disclosure, consent, and the exercise of patient autonomy in surgical innovation: a systematic content analysis of the conceptual literature. Account Res. 2014;21:331–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Laperriere NJ, Leung PM, McKenzie S, Milosevic M, Wong S, Glen J, et al. Randomized study of brachytherapy in the initial management of patients with malignant astrocytoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1998;41:1005–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Hirst A, Agha RA, Rosin D, McCulloch P. How can we improve surgical research and innovation?: the IDEAL framework for action. Int J Surg. 2013;11:1038–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 2009;374:1105–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Muskens I, Diederen SJH, Senders JT, Zamanipoor Najafabadi AH, van Furth WR, May AM, Smith TR, Bredenoord AL, Broekman MLD. Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review. Acta Neurochir. 2017;159(10):1957–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2014;81:4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Dalton R. NIH cash tied to compulsory training in good behaviour. Nature. 2000;408:629.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Mumford MD, Steele L, Watts LL. Evaluating Ethics Education Programs: a multilevel approach. Ethics Behav. 2015;25:37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Computational Neurosurgical Outcomes Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Faith C. Robertson & Marike L. D. Broekman

  2. Department of Neurosurgery, Rigshospitalet and University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Tiit Mathiesen

  3. Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Marike L. D. Broekman

  4. Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Marike L. D. Broekman

Authors
  1. Faith C. Robertson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiit Mathiesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marike L. D. Broekman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marike L. D. Broekman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Haaglanden Medical Center & Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague and Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Marike L. D. Broekman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Robertson, F.C., Mathiesen, T., Broekman, M.L.D. (2019). Informed Consent for Neurosurgical Innovation. In: Broekman, M. (eds) Ethics of Innovation in Neurosurgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05502-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05502-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05501-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05502-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation