Consent to treatment: somebody's moved the goalposts.
It is timely to consider the issue of consent to treatment in clinical oncology in a period of changing expectations where signed consent has become obligatory. Consent has a dual purpose to protect patient and doctor; if one is achieved without the other then the task is incomplete. In terms of meaningful consent the consent form is of relatively little value and it is necessary to appreciate that, if patients are to truly exercise their right of choice, they need information in ways and in situations which may mean oncologists having to alter their work practices. Oncologists work without necessarily knowing what other oncologists do or do not tell their patients, or of what ought to be told. It is unlikely that the probable wide variations for similar patients across the country will be tolerated in the future and this should act as an incentive to arrive at agreed guidelines which are protective of all the legitimate interests. The problems and the possible solutions are discussed.
Paterson
I C
IC
South Wales Clinical Oncology Service, Velindre Hospital, Cardiff, UK.
D003142:Communication; D032921:Consensus; D032962:Consent Forms; D030881:Disclosure; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent; D008495:Medical Oncology; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy*; D010344:Patient Advocacy; D010358:Patient Participation; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D018570:Risk Assessment; D014342:Truth Disclosure