Literature DB >> 8752062

Prevention. How much harm? How much benefit? 4. The ethics of informed consent for preventive screening programs.

K G Marshall1.   

Abstract

Preventive interventions may have few or unproven benefits, or they may even be harmful. Since three of the fundamental precepts of Western biomedical ethics are beneficence, non-maleficence and respect for individual autonomy, failure to obtain truly informed consent for many current preventive interventions may be unethical. However, there are many impediments to obtaining such consent. Physicians need to be aware of an immense amount of up-to-date, complex information. It may be difficult for patients to assimilate this information, and there is rarely time for physicians to become informed and to inform their patients. Clinical practice guidelines may be helpful, but not all are based on evidence, and recommendations are often conflicting. Medical institutions, as well as individual clinicians, can help solve these dilemmas. Authors and journal editors can make a commitment to report and publish well-referenced evidence-based guidelines. Organizations such as the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination and the US Preventive Services Task Force can develop balanced, evidence-based patient-information material. Faculty at all levels of medical education can increase their emphasis on the ethics of prevention. Individual clinicians should avoid making clinical decisions on the basis of relative reductions of morbidity or mortality, should use evidence-based clinical practice guidelines rather than those based on authority whenever possible, should make use of patient-information material and, most important, should have a consistent policy of obtaining informed consent from patients before they participate in potentially harmful preventive programs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8752062      PMCID: PMC1488063     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  36 in total

1.  Screening, ethics, and the law.

Authors:  P J Edwards; D M Hall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1992-08-01

2.  Women and breast cancer: is it really possible for the public to be well informed?

Authors:  C J Baines
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-06-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints?

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.903

4.  Sick individuals and sick populations.

Authors:  G Rose
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 5.  Coronary heart disease is not preventable by population interventions.

Authors:  J McCormick; P Skrabanek
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-10-08       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Attendance at a breast screening clinic: a problem of administration or attitudes.

Authors:  K French; A M Porter; S E Robinson; F M McCallum; J G Howie; M M Roberts
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1982 Aug 28-Sep 4

7.  Breast cancer screening in older women: law and patient rights.

Authors:  G J Annas
Journal:  J Gerontol       Date:  1992-11

8.  Comparison of an aggressive (U.S.) and a less aggressive (Canadian) policy for cholesterol screening and treatment.

Authors:  M Krahn; C D Naylor; A S Basinski; A S Detsky
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1991-08-15       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Long-term mortality after 5-year multifactorial primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in middle-aged men.

Authors:  T E Strandberg; V V Salomaa; V A Naukkarinen; H T Vanhanen; S J Sarna; T A Miettinen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-09-04       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice.

Authors:  A D Oxman; M A Thomson; D A Davis; R B Haynes
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

View more
  11 in total

1.  Preventive medicine in people at high risk for chronic disease: the value of identifying and treating diabetes.

Authors:  H C Gerstein; S Meltzer
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-06-01       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  The folly of population screening for type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-06-01       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Primary prevention of heart disease and stroke: a simplified approach to estimating risk of events and making drug treatment decisions.

Authors:  J P McCormack; M Levine; R E Rangno
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Screening and the family physician.

Authors:  Nicholas Pimlott
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Mass screening for celiac disease from the perspective of newly diagnosed adolescents and their parents: a mixed-method study.

Authors:  Anna Rosén; Maria Emmelin; Annelie Carlsson; Solveig Hammarroth; Eva Karlsson; Anneli Ivarsson
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Using disease risk estimates to guide risk factor interventions: field test of a patient workbook for self-assessing coronary risk.

Authors:  J Michael Paterson; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; C David Naylor
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Shared decision making in preventive health care: What it is; what it is not.

Authors:  Roland Grad; France Légaré; Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Ainsley Elizabeth Moore; Danielle Kasperavicius; Kaylyn L Kretschmer
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.275

8. 

Authors:  Roland Grad; France Légaré; Neil R Bell; James A Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Ainsley Elizabeth Moore; Danielle Kasperavicius; Kaylyn L Kretschmer
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.275

9.  Non-maleficence and the ethics of consent to cancer screening.

Authors:  Lotte Elton
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  Physician-patient discussions of controversial cancer screening tests.

Authors:  A S Dunn; K V Shridharani; W Lou; J Bernstein; C R Horowitz
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.