˜Aœ history and theory of informed consent

Clearly argued and written in nontechnical language, this book provides a definitive account of informed consent. It begins by presenting the analytic framework for reasoning about informed consent found in moral philosophy and law. The authors then review and interpret the history of informed consent in clinical medicine, research, and the courts. They argue that respect for autonomy has had a central role in the justification and function of informed consent requirements. Then they present a theory of the nature of informed consent that is based on an appreciation of its historical roots. An important contribution to a topic of current legal and ethical debate, this study is accessible to everyone with a serious interest in biomedical ethics, including physicians, philosophers, policy makers, religious ethicists, lawyers, and psychologists. This timely analysis makes a significant contribution to the debate about the rights of patients and subjects. Part I. Foundations -- Foundations In Moral Theory -- Foundations In Legal Theory Part Ii. A History Of Informed Consent -- Pronouncement And Practice In Clinical Medicine -- Consent And The Courts: The Emergence Of The Legal Doctrine -- Development Of Consent Requirements In Research Ethics -- Evolution Of Federal Policy Governing Human Research Part Iii: A Theory Of Informed Consent -- Concept Of Autonomy -- Concepts Of Informed Consent And Competence -- Understanding -- Coercion, Manipulation, And Persuasion. Ruth R. Faden, Tom L. Beauchamp, In Collaboration With Nancy M.p. King. Includes Bibliographies And Index. A timely, authoritative discussion of an important clincial topic, this useful book outlines the history, function, nature and requirements of informed consent, focusing on patient autonomy as central to the concept. Primarily a philosophical analysis, the book also covers legal aspects, with chapters on disclosure, comprehension, and competence This book makes an important contribution to a troubled area where many have had difficulty making principled judgements about the rights of patients and subjects.