Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 7:9:23743735221106599.
doi: 10.1177/23743735221106599. eCollection 2022.

Abandon Informed Consent in Favor of Probability-Based, Shared Decision-Making Following the Wishes of a Reasonable Person

John T James  1
Affiliations

Abandon Informed Consent in Favor of Probability-Based, Shared Decision-Making Following the Wishes of a Reasonable Person

John T James. J Patient Exp. .

Abstract

Legally and ethically physicians must provide information to patients so they may make an informed decision about invasive procedures. The problem is who decides what information to provide. Is it the reasonable patient or the reasonable physician? Individual patients and individual physicians may differ from the norm on what is reasonable. This problem may be solved by shared decision-making in which the preferences of the patient and the probability-based knowledge of the physician are used to co-produce an optimal choice. Currently, patients are seldom prepared to engage in shared decision-making, and vestiges of meaningless "informed consent" are common. The present case study illustrates how "reasonable person" survey data may be used by a patient to engage in probability-based, shared decision-making with a surgeon planning to perform a laminectomy. Recommendations include probability-based, shared decision-making training for patients and physicians and improved documentation to facilitate learning.

Keywords: informed consent; probability of harm; reasonable patient; shared decision-making.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Panel provided to the patient within an hour of laminectomy surgery.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Bd. Trustees. (1957) 154 Cal. App. 2d 560, 317 P.2d 170, in Greene DST and MacKenzie CR. Nuances of informed consent – the paradigm of regional anesthesia. HHS J. 2007;3(1):115‐8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. King JS, Moulton B. Rethinking informed consent: the case for shared decision-making. Am J Law Med Ethics. 2006;32(4):429‐501. - PubMed
    1. Forcino AC, Thygeson M, O’Malley AJ, et al. Measuring patient-reported shared decision-making to promote performance transparency and value-based payment: assessment of collaboRATE’s group-level reliability. J Pat Exp. 2020;7:742‐8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Spatz ES, Bao H, Herrin J, et al. Quality of informed consent documents among US hospitals: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e033299. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033299. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. James JT, Eakins DJ, Scully RR. Informed consent, shared decision-making and a reasonable patient’s wishes based on a cross-sectional, national survey in the USA using a hypothetical scenario. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028957. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-028957. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources