Public Health Vs Informed Consent
Informed consent waived in public crisis
By Andrew Bridges
Wed Jun 7, 8:11 PM ET
This AP story reports that “in a public health emergency, suspected victims would no longer have to give permission before experimental tests could be run to determine why they’re sick, under a federal rule published Wednesday.”
Of course, the question that then arises is “Who determines what constitutes a life-threatening public health emergency?” The answer is the laboratories doing the testing.
The compelling force behind the ruling, published without first seeking public comments, is apparently the concern that obtaining informed consent would delay diagnosis and treatment in an outbreak of bird flu.
Watchdog groups expressed the concern that this is a conflict of interest that could lead to overriding state informed-consent laws.
Commentary
Informed Consent is, of course, the legalistic expression of the notion that patient compliance is entered into voluntarily by an individual with adequate information to make the decision to agree to or reject treatment. The conflict between the good of the community (public health concerns) and the individual’s right to choose is an ongoing and difficult ethical dilemma — not one to be decided without reflection and debate.
Noncompliance & Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia »
Related Posts:
