PEDIATRICS Vol. 79 No. 4 April 1987, pp. A64
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Student,
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Student,

INFORMED CONSENT IN CLINICAL TRIALS

Student

What arguments are there for and against full informed consent? In favour is the need to respect another's right to self-determination. Also, information about the trial will improve the patient's knowledge and understanding of his illness and treatment. And some doctors might consider it worthwhile to involve patients when decisions are made, while others might merely be trying to protect themselves from unwelcome publicity. Indeed, informed consent may be chiefly a legalistic device to pass on to the patient unpleasant responsibilities that should have been the physician's.