Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the ...
View graph of relations

One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent. / Fovargue, Sara; Miola, Jose.
In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 36, No. 8, 08.2010, p. 494-497.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Fovargue S, Miola J. One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2010 Aug;36(8):494-497. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.032862

Author

Fovargue, Sara ; Miola, Jose. / One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2010 ; Vol. 36, No. 8. pp. 494-497.

Bibtex

@article{e5afd4c4dab64aa38fd8bc0de3b0cc2b,
title = "One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent.",
abstract = "Until 2008, if doctors followed the General Medical Council's (GMC's) guidance on providing information prior to obtaining a patient's consent to treatment, they would be going beyond what was technically required by the law. It was hoped that the common law would catch up with this guidance and encourage respect for patients' autonomy by facilitating informed decision-making. Regrettably, this has not occurred. For once, the law's inability to keep up with changing medical practice and standards is not the problem. The authors argue that while the common law has moved forward and started to recognise the importance of patient autonomy and informed decision-making, the GMC has taken a step back in their 2008 guidance on consent. Indeed, doctors are now required to tell their patients less than they were in 1998 when the last guidance was produced. This is an unfortunate development and the authors urge the GMC to revisit their guidance.",
author = "Sara Fovargue and Jose Miola",
year = "2010",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1136/jme.2009.032862",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "494--497",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "1473-4257",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent.

AU - Fovargue, Sara

AU - Miola, Jose

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

N2 - Until 2008, if doctors followed the General Medical Council's (GMC's) guidance on providing information prior to obtaining a patient's consent to treatment, they would be going beyond what was technically required by the law. It was hoped that the common law would catch up with this guidance and encourage respect for patients' autonomy by facilitating informed decision-making. Regrettably, this has not occurred. For once, the law's inability to keep up with changing medical practice and standards is not the problem. The authors argue that while the common law has moved forward and started to recognise the importance of patient autonomy and informed decision-making, the GMC has taken a step back in their 2008 guidance on consent. Indeed, doctors are now required to tell their patients less than they were in 1998 when the last guidance was produced. This is an unfortunate development and the authors urge the GMC to revisit their guidance.

AB - Until 2008, if doctors followed the General Medical Council's (GMC's) guidance on providing information prior to obtaining a patient's consent to treatment, they would be going beyond what was technically required by the law. It was hoped that the common law would catch up with this guidance and encourage respect for patients' autonomy by facilitating informed decision-making. Regrettably, this has not occurred. For once, the law's inability to keep up with changing medical practice and standards is not the problem. The authors argue that while the common law has moved forward and started to recognise the importance of patient autonomy and informed decision-making, the GMC has taken a step back in their 2008 guidance on consent. Indeed, doctors are now required to tell their patients less than they were in 1998 when the last guidance was produced. This is an unfortunate development and the authors urge the GMC to revisit their guidance.

U2 - 10.1136/jme.2009.032862

DO - 10.1136/jme.2009.032862

M3 - Journal article

VL - 36

SP - 494

EP - 497

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 1473-4257

IS - 8

ER -