This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Dixie E. Snider, MD, MPH
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Ga

JAMA. 1997;278(24):2140.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.

—In response to the issue of informed consent for publication raised by Dr Kirsch, I believe that in most circumstances identifying information should not be published unless the patient gives written consent for publication. Further-more, I believe informed consent for publication should be obtained in certain other circumstances in which it is feasible and appropriate. I do not believe, however, that informed consent should be required in every conceivable situation. From an ethical perspective, the moral principle of respect for autonomy, the principle from which the concept of informed consent is derived, should not always trump other moral principles such as nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. Conflicts between moral principles (eg, between autonomy and beneficence) result in moral problems. Such problems cannot be routinely satisfactorily resolved by adhering to a "requirement" of a group of journal editors.

Kirsch suggests that any patient should have the right to control the publication . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?