FEW FABRICATED concepts of recent vintage have achieved the currency, uncritical and ungrudging, of "informed consent." The term is so semantically felicitous, so easy to say, so straightforward and uncomplicated, that it must seem churlish indeed to suggest that it is a fraud. But Socrates said in Cratylus (Jowett [trans]): "He who first gave names and gave them according to his conception of the things which they signified; if his conception was erroneous, shall we not be deceived by him?"
It is perhaps thought-provoking to point out that those who write so knowingly of this "doctrine" are lawyers, who find it a convenient notion in medical malpractice suits; medical academicians, who are insulated from the realities of patient care by a host of underlings; or directors of research, who delegate the actual conduct of their experiments to assistants. No one, however, who is involved at the doctor-patient level, in either
Laforet EG. The Fiction of Informed Consent. JAMA. 1976;235(15):1579–1585. doi:10.1001/jama.1976.03260410035020
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: