Home > Journals > Medicine > Bulletin du cancer > summary
 
      Advanced search    Shopping cart    French version 
 
Latest books
Catalogue/Search
Collections
All journals
Medicine
Bulletin du Cancer
- Current issue
- Archives
- Subscribe
- Order an issue
- More information
Biology and research
Public health
Agronomy and biotech.
My account
Forgotten password?
Online account   activation
Subscribe
Licences IP
- Instructions for use
- Estimate request form
- Licence agreement
Order an issue
Pay-per-view articles
Newsletters
How can I publish?
Journals
Books
Help for advertisers
Foreign rights
Book sales agents



 

Texte intégral de l'article
 
Printable version

Informed consent or choice? An ethical dilemma in oncology practice


Bulletin du Cancer. Volume 94, Number 5, 453-9, Mai 2007, Synthèse

Résumé   Article gratuit  

Author(s) : Philippe Vennin

Summary : How articulate information, mutidisciplinary practice, choice and decision of the treatment in a good patient-doctor relationship, an ethical relationship ? Doctor is an expert who gets the information (patients have more and more others sources of information). Choice of the treatment depends of the facts (the evidence) and personal values (the preferences). The selection between the different options (most often they are several options) may be done by the physician or by physicians in a multidisciplinary clinics, in the presence of the patient or not. The final decision to do or not the treatment belongs to the patient (who is not always aware of that). Initial sharing of the information between patient and doctor may permit the patient to choose himself the best option. More complete is sharing of the information, more the patient is able to do a free choice (without the influence of the doctor). It is often possible (genetics, prevention, screening, adjuvant treatments) to share in full the available information (knowing its relativity and limits). In oncology, the full sharing of the information is not always realistic, neither asked by the patient. Nevertheless, it is possible to go progressively with the patient to a preferred choice through a deliberative process, a co-construction of the decision. But often, the doctor refer to a pre-established protocol, build by physicians, representing the choice of the majority (doctors and/or patients) in the « same » situation. Only one option is offered to the patient from whom consent is asked, the information been then delivered to explain the choice already done. This paternalistic attitude is very effective, comfortable and don’t alter the satisfaction of the majority of the patients, however, it limits the patient’s autonomy. The patient is not allowed to choose between all the possibilities but accept or refuse the doctor’s choice. With the extreme variability of the situations, it would be illusive to defend a unique attitude. Doctor has yet to try to adapt himself to every single case.

Keywords : informed consent, patient, ethics

 

About us - Contact us - Conditions of use - Secure payment
Latest news - Conferences
Copyright © 2007 John Libbey Eurotext - All rights reserved
[ Legal information - Powered by Dolomède ]