 |
|
Universal Consent for Invasive Procedures in the Intensive Care Unit—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: We disagree with Dr Milmore that our intervention jeopardizes ongoing discussion. We view the universal consent form as an opportunity to introduce the patient, the patient's proxy, or both, to the environment of intensive care. Recommended procedures and their alternatives can be discussed in detail, while procedures that may become necessary are introduced. We believe that this important initial interaction, coupled with informational material, can improve communication by laying the groundwork for future discussions.
Milmore argues that anticipatory consent is fundamentally incapable of involving the patient or proxy in real-time medical decision making. While we did state that "a potential limitation of anticipatory consent is that it does not allow for alterations in the risk-to-benefit ratio of particular procedures as the patient's condition changes," we went on to stress the importance of obtaining informed consent again in such circumstances. Furthermore, we believe that involving patients and/or proxies in . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Brian K. Gehlbach, MD;
John P. Kress, MD;
Jesse Hall, MD
University of Chicago
Chicago, Ill
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Universal Consent for Invasive Procedures in the Intensive Care Unit
Don Milmore
JAMA. 2003;290(6):751.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Universal Consent for Invasive Procedures in the Intensive Care Unit
Hesham A. Hassaballa, Manar K. Alshahrouri, and Robert A. Balk
JAMA. 2003;290(6):751.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
