Talk:Patient participation: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert Badgett m (Talk:Shared decision making moved to Talk:Patient participation: This is the canonical term according to the national library of medicine. As shared decision making is commonly used, will leaved a redirect there and the alternative term in this article) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Perhaps specialized cases?: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== Perhaps specialized cases? == | |||
Several medical ethicists I know use the term "research burden" with respect to patients finding clinical trials, and, when in a research facility, what may seem an overwhelming number of consents for sub-studies. This discussion led to my observation about a much-ignored corollary to one of the principles of informed consent: that the patient is entitled to an explanation of the procedure, risks, and benefits "in language he can reasonably be expected to understand." | |||
That last phrase usually implies preparing materials in lay language, but what is owed to the patient that reasonably can be expected to understand the technical language? For example, when I've been an inpatient research volunteer, nurses have brought be informed consents for certain studies. On reading the document, I had questions, some on the molecular pharmacology of the agents, some procedural, and I suggested the easiest way for me to get the information was probably to read the actual research protocol. As long as that document would not affect blinding, is that ethically reasonable? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:04, 24 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 11:04, 24 May 2008
Perhaps specialized cases?
Several medical ethicists I know use the term "research burden" with respect to patients finding clinical trials, and, when in a research facility, what may seem an overwhelming number of consents for sub-studies. This discussion led to my observation about a much-ignored corollary to one of the principles of informed consent: that the patient is entitled to an explanation of the procedure, risks, and benefits "in language he can reasonably be expected to understand."
That last phrase usually implies preparing materials in lay language, but what is owed to the patient that reasonably can be expected to understand the technical language? For example, when I've been an inpatient research volunteer, nurses have brought be informed consents for certain studies. On reading the document, I had questions, some on the molecular pharmacology of the agents, some procedural, and I suggested the easiest way for me to get the information was probably to read the actual research protocol. As long as that document would not affect blinding, is that ethically reasonable? Howard C. Berkowitz 12:04, 24 May 2008 (CDT)