Misconceptions in the Medical Profession Regarding the Doctrine of Informed Consent
- 1 School of Law, Master of Arts in Health Law and Policy, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
- 2 School of Law, Master of Arts in Health Law and Policy, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
- 3 College of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Abstract
This article focuses on misconceptions in healthcare regarding how the doctrine of informed consent is applied by both medical researchers and physicians. The specific misconception addressed relates to the standard of care required by medical professionals when caring for their patents. There has been a long-standing public misconception that medical researchers are held to a lower standard of care in informed consent lawsuits, than medical physicians in similar situated lawsuits. We argue that this misconception is largely attributed to the fact that statutes, ethical regulations, guidelines, and legal precedents within the medical and research profession are governed by two separate bodies of laws and regulatory guidelines. A thorough review of these two separate bodies of law and regulatory guidelines reveals that both medical researchers and physicians are held to a high standard of care in informed consent lawsuits. Our research is grounded in both primary and secondary historical, legal, and medical documentation. We rely mainly on historical, legal, and medical research and analysis to advance our argument that both medical researchers and physicians are held to a high standard of care in informed consent lawsuits.
- Alsan, M., & Wanamaker, M. (2018). Tuskegee and the Health of Black Men. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133, 407-455. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx029
- Bazzano, L. A., Durant, J., & Brantley, P. R. (2021). A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information. The Ochsner Journal, 21, 81-85. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.19.0105
- Brody, H., Leonard, S. E., Nie, J. B., & Weindling, P. (2014). U.S. Responses to Japanese Wartime Inhuman Experimentation after World War II. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ: The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees, 23, 220-230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180113000753
- Brothers, K. B., Rivera, S. M., Cadigan, R. J., Sharp, R. R., & Goldenberg, A. J. (2019). A Belmont Reboot: Building a Normative Foundation for Human Research in the 21st Century. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 47, 165-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073110519840497
- Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
- Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (Cal, 1972).
- Dunham v Wright, 423 F2d 940 (3rd Cir 1970).
- Furrow, R. B. B., Greaney, L. T., Johnson, H. S., Jost, S. T., Schwartz, L. R., Clark, B., Pendo, E. et al. (2018). Health Law Cases, Materials, and Problems (8th ed.). West Publishing.
- Ghooi, R. B. (2011). The Nuremberg Code—A Critique. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 2, 72-76. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.80371
- Graham, S., & Brookey, J. (2008). Do Patients Understand? The Permanente Journal, 12, 67-69. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/07-144
- Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., 366 Md. 29, 782 A.2d 807 (Md., 2001).
- Harkness, J., Lederer, E. S., & Wikler, D. (2001). Public Health Classics: Laying Ethical Foundations for Clinical Research. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79, 365-372.
- Historical Society of the New York Courts (n.d.). Hempstead Convention of 1665 and the Duke’s Laws. https://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/legal-history-eras-01/history-new-york-legal-eras-hempstead-convention.html
- Jones, K. B. (2007). Surgeons’ Silence: A History of Informed Consent in Orthopaedics. The Iowa Orthopaedic Journal, 27, 115-120.
- Kumar, N. K. (2013). Informed Consent: Past and Present. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.106372