Informed consent

Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Informed consent is a foundational ethical and legal requirement in medicine and biomedical research, whereby competent individuals receive comprehensive disclosure of relevant information—including the nature, risks, benefits, alternatives, and uncertainties of a proposed intervention—to enable autonomous, voluntary agreement or refusal without coercion.^[1]^[2]^[3] The doctrine emerged prominently in response to atrocities like unethical human experimentation by Nazi physicians during World War II, culminating in the Nuremberg Code of 1947, which asserted that "the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential" and must be obtained through full explanation of risks and purposes, free from duress.^[4]^[5]^[6] This principle evolved through international standards such as the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and the 1979 Belmont Report, alongside domestic laws like the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46), which mandate documentation of consent for most human subjects research while permitting waivers in minimal-risk scenarios or when obtaining consent is impracticable.^[7]^[8] Key elements include patient competence, adequate disclosure of material facts (determined by professional standards or reasonable person tests), demonstrated comprehension, and voluntariness, though empirical studies reveal frequent gaps in patient understanding, even with written forms.^[9]^[10]^[11] Controversies persist over its practical application, including therapeutic misconception in research, coercion via financial incentives or policy pressures, and exceptions in emergencies or public health crises where individual autonomy yields to collective imperatives, raising questions about whether consent processes truly safeguard against iatrogenic harm or institutional overreach.^[12]^[13]^[11]

Definition and Core Principles

Fundamental Concept

Informed consent constitutes a foundational ethical and legal requirement in medical practice, wherein a competent individual voluntarily agrees to a proposed intervention following comprehensive disclosure of its material risks, benefits, reasonable alternatives, and anticipated consequences. This process safeguards patient autonomy by enabling deliberate decision-making rather than passive acquiescence, distinguishing it from mere authorization or implied agreement. Unlike simple consent, which may suffice for routine, low-risk procedures like basic examinations, informed consent mandates active communication to ensure the patient's understanding aligns with the provider's duty to avoid non-disclosure of information a reasonable person would deem pertinent.^[14]^[1] The doctrine rests on the principle that competent adults possess the right to self-determination over their bodies, free from paternalistic overrides by healthcare professionals unless incapacity or emergency intervenes. Core to this concept is the bidirectional exchange: providers must furnish information in accessible terms, while patients demonstrate comprehension through questions or restatements, fostering genuine rather than perfunctory agreement. Empirical data from ethical frameworks underscore that failures in this process correlate with higher rates of patient dissatisfaction and litigation, as seen in analyses of malpractice claims where inadequate disclosure predominates.^[7]^[15]^[1] Essential elements include: (1) competence, verifying the patient's decisional capacity absent cognitive impairment; (2) disclosure, encompassing diagnosis, prognosis, and procedure specifics; (3) comprehension, confirmed via teach-back methods; and (4) voluntariness, absent coercion, undue influence, or therapeutic misconception. These criteria, derived from bioethical standards, ensure consent reflects informed choice rather than rote signature on a form, with documentation serving evidentiary rather than substitutive purpose. Violations erode trust and expose providers to liability under negligence doctrines requiring proof of causation between withheld information and harm.^[1]^[15]^[16]

Ethical and Philosophical Underpinnings

The ethical underpinnings of informed consent are rooted in the principle of respect for individual autonomy, which holds that competent persons possess the moral right to self-determination over interventions affecting their bodies or well-being, provided decisions are made without coercion or undue influence.^[3] This principle operationalizes the idea that persons should not be treated merely as means to ends—such as therapeutic or research goals—but as ends in themselves, capable of authorizing actions through deliberate choice.^[3] In bioethics frameworks, autonomy stands as a foundational norm, distinct from beneficence or non-maleficence, because it prioritizes the patient's directive authority over professional judgment alone.^[17] Philosophically, these foundations trace to Enlightenment conceptions of rational agency, particularly Immanuel Kant's deontology, which emphasizes treating individuals according to maxims they could universally will, implying a respect for their capacity to consent as autonomous agents.^[3] Kant's categorical imperative requires actions to align with rational self-legislation, though interpreters note it focuses on hypothetical rational consent rather than the empirical, disclosed process of modern informed consent, which demands actual understanding of risks, benefits, and alternatives.^[18] Complementing this, utilitarian traditions, as articulated by John Stuart Mill, underpin consent by safeguarding liberty against paternalistic overreach, arguing that interference with personal choices is justifiable only to prevent harm to others, thereby supporting voluntary authorization as a bulwark for individual welfare.^[18] In principlism, as developed by Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, respect for autonomy explicitly justifies informed consent as a process of autonomous authorization, requiring disclosure sufficient for comprehension and voluntariness, while integrating with other principles like beneficence to balance self-rule against potential self-harm.^[19] This approach, drawn from mid-20th-century bioethics, responds to historical abuses—such as non-consensual experiments—by institutionalizing consent as a moral safeguard, though debates persist on whether autonomy alone suffices or if therapeutic misconceptions undermine true voluntariness in practice.^[15] Philosophers further contend that valid consent presupposes not just capacity but freedom from distorting beliefs, ensuring decisions reflect authentic preferences rather than ignorance or manipulation.^[20]

Historical and Legal Foundations

Early Development in Common Law

The doctrine of consent in medical treatment originated in English common law under the tort of battery, which prohibited unauthorized physical contact with a person's body, treating non-consensual procedures as a form of trespass.^[21] Courts viewed surgery or invasive interventions without permission as actionable wrongs, establishing the patient's right to bodily integrity as a fundamental principle.^[22] This framework predated modern notions of disclosure, focusing instead on affirmative agreement to the procedure itself to avoid liability.^[23] A pivotal early case was Slater v. Baker & Stapleton in 1767, where surgeons were held liable for altering a treatment on a patient's broken leg without his consent.^[24] The patient, dissatisfied with initial healing, sought a second opinion; the defendants removed a seton and inserted a metal pin contrary to standard practice, causing complications.^[21] The King's Bench ruled that surgeons could not deviate from agreed methods or perform unconsented acts, even if intended beneficially, affirming that "the patient must in effect be the first mover."^[22] This decision marked the first documented imposition of liability for a non-emergency procedure lacking explicit consent, grounding medical autonomy in common law protections against battery.^[25] Throughout the 19th century, English courts refined these principles, distinguishing between express consent for elective surgeries and implied consent for minor or emergent interventions.^[26] For instance, routine examinations implied permission for necessary touch, but major operations required verbal or written agreement to mitigate battery claims.^[8] Cases emphasized that consent must be voluntary and informed by the procedure's basic nature, though detailed risk disclosure remained undeveloped, with liability hinging primarily on absence of permission rather than informational adequacy.^[27] This era's jurisprudence, inherited by American common law jurisdictions, prioritized preventing uninvited harm over therapeutic privilege, setting the stage for later expansions into negligence-based duties.^[28]

Key Landmark Cases

In Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914), the New York Court of Appeals established a core principle of patient self-determination, with Justice Benjamin Cardozo declaring that "every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body" and that a surgeon who performs an operation without consent commits battery.^[29] The case arose when Mary Schloendorff, diagnosed with abdominal cancer, consented only to an examination and potential removal of a fibroid tumor but awoke after an unauthorized appendectomy and oophorectomy, leading to gangrene and further surgery.^[29] Although the court ruled the charitable hospital not liable for independent contractors' negligence and found implied consent via hospital policy, the decision laid groundwork for recognizing non-emergency bodily inviolability as a battery claim, influencing subsequent consent doctrines despite not addressing disclosure standards.^[29]^[8] The term "informed consent" first appeared in Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees (1957), a California appellate decision emphasizing that physicians must disclose facts essential for a patient to form an intelligent consent to treatment.^[30] Martin Salgo underwent aortography to diagnose arterial occlusion but suffered permanent paralysis from an arterial tear, having received no warning of such risks despite consenting to the procedure after brief explanations of its purpose.^[30] The court reversed summary judgment for defendants, holding that mere consent is inadequate without adequate disclosure tailored to enable understanding, while cautioning against requiring revelation of all possible outcomes that might deter treatment; it deferred the adequacy of disclosure to trial evidence.^[30] This ruling shifted focus from simple consent to its informational quality, prompting broader adoption of disclosure requirements in medical practice.^[31] In Natanson v. Kline (1960), the Kansas Supreme Court articulated a physician's duty to warn of "grave, serious, or material" risks in non-emergency treatments, adopting a professional standard where disclosure aligns with what a reasonable medical practitioner would convey under similar circumstances.^[32] Irene Natanson received cobalt-60 radiation therapy for breast cancer without being informed of risks including death, disfigurement, or secondary cancers, suffering severe burns and radiation sickness that necessitated further interventions.^[32] The court reversed dismissal of her negligence claim, requiring explanation of the ailment's nature, treatment purpose, common risks, alternatives, and prospects of success or cure, but exempted therapeutic privilege for disclosures likely to harm the patient; it placed the burden on the patient to prove lack of informed consent and subsequent causation.^[32] This balanced approach prioritized medical judgment while expanding liability for undisclosed material risks.^[31] Canterbury v. Spence (1972), a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decision, rejected the prevailing professional practice standard for disclosure in favor of a "reasonable person" patient-centric test, mandating revelation of all material risks, benefits, and alternatives that a prudent patient would deem significant for decision-making.^[33] Jerry Canterbury underwent a laminectomy for back pain without warning of the 1-2% risk of paralysis, which occurred postoperatively, leading to claims of negligence and battery; the court found the surgeon's nondisclosure breached duty despite customary omission among peers.^[33] It required causation proof via expert testimony on whether adequate disclosure would have altered the patient's choice, while preserving therapeutic privilege exceptions and excluding remote or collaterally aggravating risks; this objective standard aimed to empower patient autonomy over physician discretion.^[33]^[34] The ruling influenced jurisdictions to prioritize lay comprehension, fostering statutes and guidelines for standardized risk communication.^[34]

Evolution into Modern Doctrine

The doctrine of informed consent transitioned from rudimentary protections against unauthorized touch in early common law to a negligence-based framework requiring disclosure of material information by the mid-20th century. This evolution was propelled by post-World War II ethical reckonings and judicial recognition of patient self-determination in treatment decisions. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal's 1947 Code marked a pivotal international benchmark, mandating that human subjects in experiments provide voluntary consent after full comprehension of procedures, risks, and purposes, thereby embedding informed consent as a safeguard against exploitation in research.^[6]^[8] In therapeutic contexts, U.S. courts began refining disclosure standards during the 1950s and 1960s, shifting emphasis from mere assent to informed choice. The 1957 California case Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees introduced the phrase "informed consent," ruling that physicians must warn patients of risks inherent in proposed treatments that a reasonable person in the patient's position would consider material to the decision.^[35] This built on earlier battery claims, framing failure to disclose as negligence rather than trespass. Subsequent cases, such as Natanson v. Kline (1960), affirmed that disclosure should align with customary professional practice but prioritize risks of serious harm, while allowing "therapeutic privilege" exceptions where information might psychologically harm the patient.^[36] A doctrinal leap occurred in 1972 with Canterbury v. Spence, where the D.C. Circuit Court rejected the professional practice standard in favor of the "reasonable patient" materiality test: physicians must disclose information that a prudent person would deem significant in deciding whether to undergo the procedure, irrespective of peer customs.^[33]^[34] This patient-centered approach, echoed in Cobbs v. Grant that year, solidified modern doctrine by emphasizing autonomy over paternalism, requiring evidence of causation— that adequate disclosure would have led a reasonable patient to forgo treatment.^[37] By the 1970s, statutory codifications reinforced these principles; for instance, the 1974 National Research Act in the U.S. led to institutional review boards mandating informed consent in federally funded studies, extending judicial norms to regulatory practice.^[38] Internationally, the World Medical Association's 1964 Declaration of Helsinki adapted Nuremberg principles for biomedical research, advocating informed consent unless impracticable, thus harmonizing ethical standards across clinical and experimental domains. These developments entrenched informed consent as a multifaceted obligation encompassing capacity assessment, comprehension verification, and documentation, while courts delineated exceptions for emergencies, incompetence, and implied waiver.^[8]

Capacity and Competence

Capacity refers to a patient's functional ability to make a specific medical decision at a given time, encompassing the skills to receive and understand treatment information, appreciate the situation and its consequences in light of personal values, reason through relevant information, and express a consistent choice.^[39] ^[40] This assessment is task-specific and situation-dependent, meaning an individual may possess capacity for one decision (e.g., consenting to routine surgery) but lack it for another (e.g., complex end-of-life choices amid acute delirium).^[41] Capacity is presumed in adults unless evidence suggests otherwise, with the burden on clinicians to demonstrate incapacity through objective evaluation rather than assumptions based on age, diagnosis, or eccentricity.^[39] ^[42] Competence, by contrast, denotes a broader legal status determined by a court, granting or revoking an individual's authority to make decisions across domains such as contracts, finances, or healthcare; it is not equivalent to capacity and typically endures until judicially altered.^[39] ^[43] A finding of incompetence may lead to appointment of a guardian, but even incompetent patients can retain capacity for isolated decisions if clinically assessed as capable.^[40] In the context of informed consent, clinicians evaluate capacity directly, while competence rulings arise only when disputes escalate to legal review, such as in cases of suspected abuse or profound impairment.^[42] Standard criteria for decision-making capacity, as outlined in medical guidelines, require four elements: (1) ability to express a choice; (2) understanding of relevant information about the proposed intervention, risks, benefits, and alternatives; (3) appreciation of how the information applies personally, including acknowledgment of potential impairments; and (4) rational manipulation of information to weigh options logically.^[39] ^[41] Impairments often stem from conditions like delirium (affecting up to 80% of ICU patients), dementia (prevalent in 10-20% of hospitalized elderly), severe depression, psychosis, or intellectual disabilities, though mere disagreement with recommended treatment does not equate to incapacity.^[40] ^[39] Temporary factors, such as intoxication or medication side effects, necessitate re-evaluation once resolved.^[42] Assessment typically begins with a structured clinical interview by the treating physician, probing the four criteria through open-ended questions, such as asking patients to explain treatment options in their own words or deliberate aloud on pros and cons.^[39] Formal tools like the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T), scoring understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and choice on validated scales, or the Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE) aid in documentation but are not mandatory for routine cases.^[39] ^[41] If capacity is unclear, consultation with psychiatry, neurology, or ethics committees is recommended; persistent doubt may prompt surrogate decision-makers or court intervention, ensuring consent processes uphold autonomy without presuming incompetence based on demographics.^[40] In minors, capacity thresholds vary by jurisdiction—e.g., emancipated minors or those with Gillick competence in the UK can consent independently for certain treatments—but generally require parental involvement unless mature minor doctrines apply.^[42]

Adequate Disclosure

Adequate disclosure requires that healthcare providers furnish patients with sufficient information to enable a reasoned decision about medical interventions, focusing on material facts pertinent to the patient's circumstances. This element of informed consent shifted from a professional practice standard—where physicians disclosed only what peers deemed necessary—to a patient-centered approach emphasizing what a reasonable person in the patient's position would consider significant for decision-making. In the landmark 1972 U.S. case Canterbury v. Spence, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected reliance on medical custom alone, ruling that disclosure must cover risks and information a prudent patient would deem material, such as the 1% risk of paralysis from a laminectomy not mentioned to the plaintiff, who subsequently suffered that outcome.^[33]^[34] Core components of adequate disclosure typically encompass the patient's diagnosis or condition, the proposed treatment's nature and purpose, its anticipated benefits and reasonably foreseeable risks (including severity and probability), viable alternatives (with their risks and benefits), and the prognosis if treatment is declined. For instance, physicians must reveal not only direct procedural risks but also potential diagnostic tests that could rule out conditions or conflicts of interest, such as financial incentives tied to specific treatments. Courts applying the reasonable patient standard assess materiality by whether the undisclosed information might cause a reasonable person to withhold consent, prioritizing empirical risk data over subjective physician judgment.^[34]^[1] Jurisdictional variations persist: some U.S. states retain a hybrid professional-reasonable patient test, while others adhere strictly to the latter, as affirmed in Canterbury. Adequacy is not met by rote recitation; evidence shows that overly technical or voluminous disclosures can overwhelm patients, underscoring the need for tailored, comprehensible communication—often verified through patient questions or teach-back methods. Failure to disclose material alternatives, like less invasive options with comparable efficacy, has led to liability in negligence claims, as patients may forgo superior choices absent awareness.^[1]^[34] Exceptions to full disclosure apply in emergencies precluding patient input or when revelation would demonstrably harm the patient (therapeutic privilege), but courts narrowly construe these to prevent paternalism, requiring objective evidence of severe psychological detriment. Empirical studies indicate that incomplete risk disclosure correlates with higher litigation rates, as seen in analyses of malpractice suits where nondisclosure of alternatives or low-probability high-severity risks predominated.^[1]^[34]

Voluntariness and Understanding

Voluntariness in informed consent requires that the individual's agreement be free from coercion, undue influence, or deceit, ensuring the decision reflects autonomous choice rather than external pressures. The Belmont Report, a foundational ethical document from 1979, specifies that valid consent exists only if voluntarily given under conditions free of such constraints, emphasizing respect for persons by protecting against subtle forms of manipulation, such as therapeutic misconception in clinical settings where patients overestimate benefits due to trust in providers.^[44] In legal terms, U.S. federal regulations under 45 CFR 46 mandate that consent in human subjects research avoids elements like excessive compensation or dependency relationships that could impair free choice, with institutional review boards required to evaluate potential coercion.^[45] Ethical guidelines from the American Medical Association similarly stress that consent must be voluntary, revocable at any time, and not induced by intimidation or misinformation.^[14] Understanding, or comprehension, demands that the individual not only receive information but actively grasp its implications, including risks, benefits, alternatives, and the right to refuse. This element, distinct from mere disclosure, involves the provider's duty to facilitate comprehension through clear communication, addressing questions, and verifying retention, as outlined in the Belmont Report's requirement for conditions enabling informed decision-making.^[44] Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that comprehension is foundational, with studies showing that patients often struggle to recall or interpret disclosed details, such as probabilistic risks, due to factors like literacy levels or information overload, necessitating techniques like simplified language or visual aids.^[46] In practice, the AMA Code requires physicians to ascertain that patients comprehend the material sufficiently to make reasoned choices, rejecting rote recitation as inadequate proof.^[14] These elements interconnect, as impaired voluntariness—such as in hierarchical provider-patient dynamics—can undermine understanding by fostering deference over critical evaluation. Empirical research indicates that up to 50-60% of research participants exhibit incomplete comprehension of consent forms, often linked to voluntariness concerns like perceived obligations to participate, highlighting the need for iterative dialogue to confirm both.^[10] Courts have upheld this in cases like Canterbury v. Spence (1972), where the D.C. Circuit ruled that consent validity hinges on the patient's subjective understanding and freedom from overpersuasion, not just objective disclosure.^[1] Failure to ensure these can invalidate consent, exposing providers to liability for battery or negligence.

Application in Clinical Medicine

Procedures and Professional Obligations

Physicians are ethically and legally obligated to obtain informed consent prior to performing invasive procedures or treatments in clinical medicine, ensuring patients receive sufficient information to make autonomous decisions. The American Medical Association (AMA) Code of Medical Ethics specifies that this process requires physicians to disclose the patient's diagnosis, the nature and purpose of the proposed intervention, its risks and benefits, reasonable alternatives including no treatment, and any relevant personal interests of the provider.^[14] ^[34] This disclosure must be tailored to the patient's capacity for understanding, with physicians assessing comprehension through questions and discussion rather than relying solely on rote recitation.^[14] The procedural steps typically begin with a verbal discussion between the treating physician and patient, followed by documentation via a signed consent form that summarizes the key elements discussed. Documentation serves as evidence of the process but does not substitute for it; courts and medical boards emphasize that the form must reflect genuine communication, not mere formality.^[1] ^[47] For surgical procedures, consent must be obtained prior to administration of anesthesia or sedation, with the form placed in the medical record, as required by standards from bodies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).^[48] In jurisdictions such as Pennsylvania, following a 2017 Supreme Court ruling, the treating surgeon bears direct responsibility for obtaining consent, prohibiting delegation to non-treating personnel without patient waiver.^[49] Professional obligations extend to maintaining voluntariness, free from coercion or undue influence, and revisiting consent if circumstances change, such as new risks emerging during treatment.^[14] Medical boards and ethics codes, including those from the AMA, hold physicians accountable for failures in this process, potentially leading to disciplinary action for negligence or ethical violations if consent is inadequately obtained or documented.^[50] Exceptions apply only in emergencies where immediate action is necessary to preserve life or prevent serious harm, invoking implied consent doctrines, but even then, retrospective notification and documentation are required.^[47] These obligations underscore the physician's fiduciary duty to prioritize patient autonomy while balancing clinical judgment, with non-compliance risking malpractice liability under standards like those established in cases requiring disclosure of material risks a reasonable patient would consider.^[51]

Shared Decision-Making vs. Paternalism

Shared decision-making (SDM) emerged as a deliberate counterpoint to traditional medical paternalism, wherein physicians unilaterally determined treatments based on their expertise without substantial patient input. Paternalism, dominant through much of the 20th century, prioritized beneficence and non-maleficence, often withholding detailed risks or alternatives to avoid overwhelming patients or eroding trust in clinical authority.^[52] In contrast, SDM, formalized in the 1982 report by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine, posits a collaborative process where clinicians present evidence-based options and patients incorporate personal values to jointly select interventions, thereby aligning informed consent with genuine autonomy rather than mere disclosure.^[53] This shift reflects evolving legal standards post-Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital (1914), which established patient self-determination, but critiques of paternalism intensified in the 1970s amid bioethics reforms emphasizing patient rights over physician benevolence.^[54] Empirical evidence supports SDM's advantages in fostering valid consent by enhancing patient knowledge, reducing decisional regret, and improving adherence compared to paternalistic models. A 2012 systematic review of 115 studies involving over 33,000 patients found that SDM interventions, often via decision aids, increased accurate risk perceptions by 15-20% and patient involvement without prolonging consultations excessively.^[55] In cardiovascular care, SDM has correlated with lower rates of elective procedures (e.g., 14% reduction in percutaneous coronary interventions in randomized trials) and better alignment with patient preferences, mitigating overtreatment driven by paternalistic assumptions of universal benefit.^[56] However, outcomes vary by context; while SDM boosts satisfaction in elective scenarios, it may not uniformly improve clinical endpoints like mortality, as evidenced by mixed results in oncology trials where informational overload occasionally led to deferred decisions.^[57] Patient preferences challenge the universality of SDM, revealing that paternalism persists not solely from clinician bias but from patient desires for guidance amid uncertainty or complexity. Surveys indicate 20-40% of patients in acute or high-stakes settings (e.g., surgery or cancer diagnosis) prefer directive advice over equal partnership, citing trust in physician expertise and aversion to responsibility for adverse outcomes.^[58] A 2015 analysis highlighted this "paternalism preference," where even informed patients opt for unshared decisions to alleviate cognitive burden, particularly when health literacy is low or emotions run high, underscoring that autonomy does not equate to equal deliberation for all.^[52] Clinicians, despite endorsing SDM in principle, revert to paternalism in 30-50% of observed encounters due to time constraints (average consultations under 15 minutes) and perceived patient deference, as documented in residency training studies.^[59] Selective paternalism justifies limited overrides of SDM when patient incompetence or imminent harm necessitates intervention, preserving consent's voluntariness without blanket deference to autonomy. For instance, in emergencies or with cognitively impaired individuals, implied consent allows paternalistic action absent explicit discussion, but post-hoc documentation ensures accountability.^[60] Critics argue unchecked SDM risks "false autonomy," where superficial involvement masks inadequate comprehension, as seen in trials where 25% of patients misrecalled disclosed risks despite aids; thus, hybrid models—calibrating input to patient capacity—better realize informed consent than rigid anti-paternalism.^[61] This tension persists, with ongoing research advocating observable behaviors (e.g., option clarification, preference exploration) as metrics for authentic SDM over declarative intent.^[62] Patient comprehension of informed consent materials is frequently limited, with empirical studies showing that participants often fail to grasp essential elements such as study purpose, risks, randomization, and voluntariness in clinical trials.^[63] A systematic review of 44 studies from 1970 to 2019 found that while some comprehension improved over time, many patients still exhibited deficits in understanding alternatives to participation and the nature of placebo controls, attributing this to overly technical language and abstract concepts.^[63] In medical practice, similar gaps persist, where patients recall only about 50-60% of disclosed information immediately after discussions, dropping further over time due to cognitive overload.^[1] Language barriers exacerbate these issues, particularly for non-English speakers or those with limited health literacy, as consent forms typically require reading levels beyond the eighth grade, while over 20% of U.S. adults read below a sixth-grade level.00393-6/fulltext) A retrospective analysis of clinical trial consent forms linked lower readability scores to higher participant dropout rates, with forms averaging Flesch-Kincaid scores of 12-15 (college level) correlating to 10-15% increased attrition.00393-6/fulltext) Cultural differences compound this, as patients from collectivist backgrounds may prioritize family input over individual autonomy, leading to deferred decision-making that undermines personal voluntariness.^[1]^[64] Cognitive and emotional impairments represent patient-centered barriers, including age-related declines, acute illness, or anxiety that impair decisional capacity.^[64] For overwhelmed patients facing life-threatening diagnoses, factors like emotional distress and information volume can exceed processing limits, resulting in therapeutic misconception—where patients overestimate personal benefits despite disclosures.^[12] Disabilities or low education levels further limit appreciation of consequences, with qualitative data from trial recruiters noting frequent challenges in verifying true understanding among cognitively impaired individuals.^[65] Provider-related and systemic obstacles include time pressures in busy clinical environments, where rushed disclosures prevent adequate dialogue, and power dynamics that foster deference to perceived medical authority.^[1] Consent documents themselves often exceed 20 pages in trials, rendering them unread or superficially skimmed, as participants rarely complete full reviews before signing.^[66] Family influence can override individual preferences, especially in hierarchical cultures, while fear of consequences like withheld care discourages questioning.^[67] These process-centered barriers—such as poor readability and lack of tailored assessments—persist despite regulatory mandates, highlighting gaps between doctrine and practice.^[64]

Regulatory Frameworks

The Nuremberg Code, promulgated in 1947 by the Allied tribunal during the Doctors' Trial at Nuremberg, established the foundational principle that "the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential" for permissible medical experimentation on humans.^[4] This ten-point code emphasized that consent must be given by a subject with legal capacity, free from coercion, fraud, or deceit, and based on sufficient knowledge of the experiment's nature, duration, and potential risks, with the right to withdraw at any time.^[68] Although not legally binding, it influenced subsequent international standards by prioritizing subject autonomy over researcher authority.^[69] The World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, first adopted in 1964 and revised periodically (most recently in 2013 with ongoing updates), builds on the Nuremberg Code by requiring that medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent must include adequate information on the study's aims, methods, anticipated benefits, potential hazards, and discomforts. Consent should be obtained in writing where possible, or otherwise formally documented and witnessed, with provisions for vulnerable populations needing additional safeguards.^[70] The declaration mandates ethical review by independent committees and underscores that research protocols must adhere to its principles, extending consent requirements to the use of identifiable human material or data.^[71] In the United States, the Common Rule (45 CFR 46, Subpart A), codified in 1991 and revised effective January 21, 2019, governs federally funded or supported human subjects research across multiple agencies, requiring institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve informed consent processes that include a concise presentation of key information, such as risks, benefits, alternatives, and voluntariness.^[45]^[72] Legally effective consent must be obtained from the subject or their legally authorized representative, documented via a written form (with waivers possible under strict conditions), and for certain clinical trials, posted on a public federal website.^[73] Complementary FDA regulations under 21 CFR Part 50 mandate similar elements for investigational drugs, devices, or biologics, prohibiting exculpatory language that waives subject rights.^[74] Internationally harmonized guidelines, such as the International Council for Harmonisation's Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) E6(R2) adopted in 2016 and updated in draft E6(R3) in 2023, require that informed consent in clinical trials be voluntary, based on clear communication of trial details, and documented in writing by the subject or representative, with audio-visual or implied consent permitted only in exceptional cases like emergencies.^[75]^[76] In the European Union, Regulation (EU) No 536/2014, fully applicable from January 31, 2022, defines informed consent as a subject's free and voluntary willingness to participate, requiring written documentation, sufficient time for consideration, and specific provisions for minors, incapacitated adults, and emergency settings, with harmonized rules across member states to facilitate multinational trials.^[77]^[78] These frameworks collectively enforce IRB or ethics committee oversight to ensure consent processes mitigate coercion and promote comprehension, though implementation varies by jurisdiction.^[69]

Clinical Trials and Experimental Interventions

In clinical trials, informed consent ensures that participants voluntarily agree to experimental procedures after receiving comprehensive information about potential risks, benefits, and alternatives, serving as a cornerstone of ethical research to prevent exploitation observed in historical abuses.^[1] The Nuremberg Code, established in 1947 following Nazi medical experiments, articulated the first principle that "the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential," requiring that consent be given without coercion, with full knowledge of the experiment's nature, duration, and foreseeable consequences.^[4] This framework influenced subsequent guidelines, including the Declaration of Helsinki adopted by the World Medical Association in 1964, which mandates that informed consent be obtained in writing where possible and prioritizes participant welfare over scientific interests.^[79] Regulatory frameworks in the United States, codified in 21 CFR Part 50, require institutional review boards to approve consent processes and forms that disclose key elements such as the trial's purpose, procedures, reasonably foreseeable risks and discomforts, potential benefits, alternative treatments, confidentiality protections, compensation for injury, and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty.^[74] These regulations, harmonized internationally through the International Council for Harmonisation's Good Clinical Practice guidelines, emphasize ongoing consent updates as new information emerges, particularly in long-term or adaptive trials involving novel interventions like gene therapies or immunotherapies.^[80] Violations, such as in the U.S. Public Health Service's Tuskegee syphilis study (1932–1972), where 399 African American men with syphilis were denied treatment without disclosure of their condition or available penicillin after 1947, underscored the need for robust consent to avoid deception and harm, prompting the 1974 National Research Act and Belmont Report.^[81] Challenges persist in ensuring true understanding, as participants often exhibit therapeutic misconception, conflating trial participation with personalized care rather than experimental randomization, leading to overestimation of benefits and underappreciation of risks.^[82] Complex trial designs, including placebos or blinded allocations, complicate disclosure without biasing outcomes, while vulnerable groups—such as those with cognitive impairments or economic incentives—face heightened coercion risks, necessitating safeguards like independent advocates or simplified information formats.^[65] Empirical studies indicate that traditional consent forms, averaging over 20 pages, yield low comprehension rates, with only about 50% of participants accurately recalling key risks post-consent, prompting calls for innovative approaches like tiered or dynamic consent models to enhance voluntariness and comprehension in experimental contexts.^[10]

Non-Medical Research Contexts

In non-medical research contexts, such as social sciences, behavioral psychology, and educational studies, informed consent protects participants from risks including breaches of confidentiality, emotional or psychological distress, and unintended exposure of personal information, while ensuring voluntary participation.^[83]^[84] These contexts often involve procedures like surveys, interviews, focus groups, or observational methods, where physical risks are absent but informational and dignity-related harms predominate.^[85] U.S. federal policy under the Common Rule (45 CFR 46), revised in 2018 and effective January 21, 2019, requires informed consent for federally funded or supported human subjects research, explicitly including non-biomedical behavioral and social science investigations.^[7] Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) oversee compliance, mandating disclosure of the study's purpose, duration, procedures, foreseeable risks and discomforts, potential benefits, confidentiality safeguards, compensation details, and the right to withdraw at any time without penalty.^[86]^[87] Consent forms for these studies are typically written at an 8th-grade reading level or below to promote comprehension among diverse populations.^[87] Professional guidelines, such as the American Psychological Association's (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (last amended June 2017), reinforce these requirements under Standard 8.02, emphasizing that psychologists must obtain and document informed consent prior to research involvement, describing the nature, purpose, and expected duration of participation.^[88]^[89] In deception-based studies—common in experimental psychology to study natural behaviors, such as obedience or conformity—IRBs may approve withholding or misleading information about the true purpose if no more than minimal risk is involved and full debriefing occurs immediately after, including explanations of deceptions, rationales, and opportunities for data withdrawal.^[90]^[91] APA Standard 8.07 permits such deception only when essential to the methodology and not feasible otherwise, with post-debriefing to remove any lasting adverse effects.^[88] Waivers or alterations of informed consent are frequently granted in low-risk non-medical research, per Common Rule criteria at 45 CFR 46.116(f), if the study involves no more than minimal risk, could not practicably proceed without the waiver, and includes additional protections like debriefing where appropriate.^[92] Examples include anonymous online surveys on public attitudes, retrospective analysis of existing de-identified datasets, or naturalistic observations in public settings, where signed consent might introduce bias or undermine anonymity.^[93]^[84] In such cases, implied consent via study instructions or opt-out mechanisms may suffice, provided participants are informed of risks like data aggregation for secondary analysis.^[94] These adaptations balance ethical protections with scientific validity, though critics argue that even minimal-risk waivers can erode participant trust if not transparently justified.^[95]

Special Cases and Exceptions

Minors and Parental Rights

In most jurisdictions, individuals under the age of 18 are deemed minors lacking the legal capacity to provide informed consent for medical treatment, with parental or guardian consent required to authorize interventions.^[1] This principle stems from the presumption that parents act in their child's best interest, balancing immediate needs against potential long-term consequences, though empirical evidence from neurodevelopmental research highlights adolescents' heightened risk-taking and incomplete prefrontal cortex maturation—key for weighing complex risks—which persists into the early 20s.^[96] Variations exist internationally; for instance, many European countries set the minimum age at 16 or 18, while others apply no fixed threshold, assessing case-by-case maturity.^[97] In the United States, federal regulations define children as those not yet at the legal age of consent, typically 18, reinforcing parental authority except in specified exceptions.^[98] Exceptions to parental consent include emancipated minors—those legally independent through marriage, military service, or court declaration—who hold adult-like rights to consent or refuse treatment.^[99] The mature minor doctrine, recognized in numerous U.S. states, permits adolescents demonstrating sufficient understanding of treatment risks and benefits to consent independently, often applied to routine or beneficial care when parents are unavailable.^[100] Similarly, statutes in all U.S. states allow minors to consent to specific services without parental involvement, such as reproductive health (e.g., contraception, STI testing), mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment, and prenatal care, aiming to encourage access amid potential family conflicts.^[101] In the United Kingdom, Gillick competence enables children under 16 to consent if they exhibit adequate intelligence and comprehension of the procedure's implications, as established in the 1985 Gillick v. West Norfolk case, though parental notification remains encouraged.^[102] Parental rights can be overridden by courts when refusal endangers the minor's life or health, such as in cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses denying blood transfusions; U.S. courts prioritize the child's welfare, intervening via temporary guardianship since the 1960s.^[103] In pediatric research, regulations mandate parental permission alongside the minor's assent where feasible, with heightened protections for higher-risk studies under frameworks like the U.S. Common Rule's four risk-benefit categories.^[104] Recent legislative trends reflect growing scrutiny of minors' decisional capacity for irreversible elective procedures; as of July 2024, 25 U.S. states have enacted bans or severe restrictions on medical interventions for gender dysphoria—such as puberty blockers or surgeries—even with parental consent, citing insufficient long-term evidence of benefits, potential harms like infertility and bone density loss, and adolescents' neurocognitive limitations in forecasting outcomes.^[105]^[106] These measures counter earlier expansions of minor autonomy, emphasizing empirical data over self-reported maturity assessments, which studies show correlate poorly with sustained decision quality.^[107]

Incapacitated or Vulnerable Patients

Incapacitated patients are those lacking the cognitive capacity to understand relevant information, appreciate consequences, and communicate a reasoned choice regarding medical interventions, often due to conditions such as dementia, severe mental illness, or acute coma.^[108] Capacity is presumed unless formally assessed and documented as absent, with evaluation focusing on functional abilities rather than diagnosis alone.^[109] For such patients, informed consent shifts to legally authorized representatives or surrogates, who must adhere to established ethical and legal standards to approximate the patient's autonomy.^[7] Surrogate decision-making prioritizes the substituted judgment standard, whereby surrogates decide based on the patient's known prior wishes, values, or expressed preferences, as evidenced by advance directives like living wills or durable powers of attorney for healthcare.^[43] Absent such evidence, surrogates apply the best interests standard, weighing objective medical benefits against burdens, incorporating factors like pain relief, life expectancy, and quality of life, while considering any available input from family or ethics committees.^[110] Surrogate hierarchies, statutorily defined in most U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., spouse first, followed by adult children), guide selection, though conflicts among potential surrogates may necessitate court-appointed guardians.^[111] In cases of unrepresented patients without surrogates or directives—estimated to comprise up to 6% of hospitalized adults—hospital ethics committees or public guardianship systems provide oversight, deliberating on best interests with multidisciplinary input.^[112] Vulnerable patients, including those with fluctuating capacity (e.g., delirium in elderly or critically ill individuals, where over 80% in intensive care units lack decision-making ability), require additional safeguards to prevent coercion or undue influence.^[113] In clinical research, institutional review boards mandate extra protections, such as assent from the patient where possible, rigorous surrogate screening, and prospective assent procedures for minimal-risk studies.^[114] Ethical challenges arise from surrogates' potential misalignment with patient preferences—empirical studies indicate surrogates often overestimate or underestimate wishes, particularly for life-sustaining treatments—and risks of "illusory consent," where minimally verbal incapacitated patients appear to agree without true comprehension.^[115] Cultural variances in family dynamics and state-specific laws further complicate processes, underscoring the need for capacity assessments by trained clinicians and documentation to mitigate disputes.^[116] In medical emergencies where a patient is unable to provide explicit informed consent due to incapacity, such as unconsciousness or severe injury, the doctrine of implied consent permits healthcare providers to administer necessary treatment to prevent death or serious harm, assuming the patient would consent if able.^[1] This exception derives from the principle of necessity, recognizing that delay for consent could exacerbate risks, as codified in various U.S. state laws and common law precedents.^[117] For instance, emergency medical services (EMS) personnel may initiate resuscitation or stabilization without prior approval when the patient's condition demands immediate action and no surrogate decision-maker is available.^[118] The legal basis for implied consent in emergencies traces to the emergency exception rule, which balances patient autonomy against the ethical imperative to preserve life, often applied in scenarios like trauma care or cardiac arrest where verbal or written consent is infeasible.^[119] Courts have upheld this doctrine since early 20th-century cases emphasizing implied agreement through circumstances, such as a patient presenting to an emergency department, thereby inferring willingness for standard interventions.^[8] In practice, it applies to procedures like intubation or blood transfusions, provided they align with accepted medical standards and no advance directive explicitly prohibits them.^[120] Limitations to emergency waivers include requirements that the situation constitute a genuine exigency, with no reasonable opportunity to obtain surrogate consent, and that interventions remain within the scope of preserving life rather than elective procedures.^[121] Post-treatment documentation is essential to justify actions, as failure to meet these criteria can expose providers to liability claims for battery or negligence, though successful suits are rare when necessity is demonstrated.^[14] Internationally, similar principles exist, such as under the UK's Mental Capacity Act 2005, which authorizes urgent treatment in best interests absent capacity, though U.S. applications emphasize implied patient volition more explicitly.^[122]

Controversies and Criticisms

Abortion and Reproductive Procedures

In the United States, informed consent for abortion typically requires providers to disclose medical risks, alternatives such as adoption or parenting, and gestational age, with 30 states mandating abortion-specific informed consent protocols as of 2019 that include state-developed materials on procedure details and potential complications.^[123] These laws often incorporate waiting periods—ranging from 24 to 72 hours in states like Texas and Utah—to allow reflection, alongside requirements for ultrasounds or viewing fetal images in approximately 15 states to verify pregnancy and inform on development.^[124] However, enforcement varies post-Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), with total ban states like Alabama retaining unenforced counseling mandates that emphasize abortion's irreversibility and fetal viability risks.^[124] Controversies arise over the completeness of disclosures, particularly regarding fetal pain capability, which neuroscientific evidence indicates may occur as early as 12-20 weeks gestation due to thalamocortical connections enabling sensory processing.^[125] Five states, including Texas and Oklahoma, mandate verbal or written notification that the fetus may feel pain during second-trimester procedures, prompting offers of anesthesia, though critics argue such laws impose unsubstantiated burdens while providers in permissive jurisdictions often omit this, potentially undermining autonomy by withholding data on fetal nociception supported by fetal surgery practices treating pain from 15 weeks. Empirical challenges include biased counseling; investigations reveal some clinics downplay procedural risks like hemorrhage (occurring in 0.2-2.7% of cases) or incomplete abortion (up to 5%), favoring euphemistic language that minimizes fetal humanity.^[126] Post-abortion psychological outcomes fuel debates on consent adequacy, with peer-reviewed analyses showing elevated risks of depression (up to 30% higher), anxiety, and suicidal ideation compared to childbirth or denial of abortion, particularly among women with prior mental health issues or ambivalent decisions.^[127] Regret rates vary by study methodology; a 2023 analysis of U.S. women reported 20-66% experiencing persistent sadness, guilt, or decision doubt five years later, contrasting lower figures (under 5%) from longitudinal cohorts funded by abortion advocacy groups, which may underreport due to selection bias toward satisfied participants.^[128] A 2025 qualitative survey found negative emotions like grief (85%) and regret (85%) predominating over relief, attributing this to inadequate pre-procedure counseling on long-term attachment bonds and causal links to unresolved loss.^[129] For other reproductive procedures, informed consent controversies center on permanent interventions like tubal ligation and hysterectomy. Federal regulations require a 30-day waiting period and specific consent forms for Medicaid-funded sterilizations to prevent coercion, yet compliance barriers result in over 25% of desired procedures being unfilled, disproportionately affecting low-income women who report pressure from providers or partners without full disclosure of regret risks (10-26% in young women).^[130] Historical and ongoing cases highlight ethical lapses, such as invalid consents in immigrant detention facilities where hysterectomies occurred without comprehensive risk discussions (e.g., infertility permanence, dyspareunia in 20-30%), raising systemic concerns over vulnerability exploitation despite nominal consent.^[131] In vasectomy contexts, while reversal feasibility (success 40-90% but declining with time) is disclosed, underemphasis on psychological impacts like post-procedure depression in 5-10% of cases parallels abortion debates, underscoring the need for unbiased, evidence-based risk stratification.^[132]

Vaccine Mandates and Public Health Emergencies

In public health emergencies, vaccine mandates have historically prioritized collective protection over individual informed consent, as exemplified by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which upheld a state law requiring smallpox vaccination during an outbreak, permitting fines for noncompliance but not physical coercion.^[133] This decision affirmed states' police powers to enforce vaccinations for communicable diseases deemed a menace to public health, predating formalized informed consent doctrines like the Nuremberg Code (1947), which mandates voluntary consent for medical experiments but does not explicitly address approved vaccines or legal mandates.^[134] Critics argue that such mandates inherently undermine voluntariness, a core element of informed consent, by coercing participation through penalties like job loss or restricted access to services, though proponents contend that emergencies justify limited exceptions when individual refusal poses verifiable risks to others.^[135] During the COVID-19 pandemic, declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization on January 30, 2020, numerous jurisdictions imposed vaccine mandates, including for healthcare workers and federal employees, often under emergency use authorizations (EUAs) that required disclosure of known risks but faced challenges in ensuring full comprehension amid rapidly evolving data.^[136] For instance, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) November 2021 mandate for large employers was struck down by the Supreme Court in NFIB v. OSHA (2022) on grounds of overreach beyond workplace safety, highlighting tensions between federal emergency powers and individual rights, while state-level mandates for healthcare personnel were largely upheld, with courts citing reduced transmission risks in high-exposure settings.^[137] The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005 granted immunity to manufacturers and administrators from liability for vaccine-related injuries during declared emergencies, except for willful misconduct, effectively limiting recourse for those claiming inadequate consent regarding rare adverse events like myocarditis, reported at rates of 1-10 per 100,000 doses in young males post-mRNA vaccination per CDC surveillance data through 2023.^[138]^[139] Ethically, mandates conflict with principles of autonomy in documents like the Declaration of Helsinki (2013), which stresses informed consent as essential unless overridden by minimal-risk public health necessities, yet empirical analyses reveal mixed outcomes on justification.^[140] Studies indicate mandates boosted uptake—e.g., New York City's proof-of-vaccination requirement combined with incentives increased adult vaccination rates by 7-10% in late 2021—but also correlated with workforce disruptions, such as over 1% of healthcare workers resigning in mandate-heavy states like New York and California by mid-2022.^[141]^[142] COVID-19 vaccines averted an estimated 1.4-4 million U.S. deaths from 2020-2024 per modeling, primarily through early reductions in severe outcomes (e.g., 70-90% efficacy against hospitalization pre-Omicron), yet waning protection against transmission (dropping to <20% post-Omicron) and breakthrough infections questioned the proportionality of coercive measures, particularly for low-risk groups where booster mandates yielded net harms like excess cardiac events outweighing prevented COVID cases in young adults.^[143]^[139]^[144] In emergencies, regulatory frameworks like the FDA's 21 CFR 50.24 permit exceptions to informed consent for life-threatening research where obtaining consent is infeasible, requiring community consultation and institutional review board oversight, but this applies to trials rather than routine vaccination campaigns.^[145] Mandates thus rely on legislative or executive authority to balance utilitarian goals against deontological consent rights, with post-hoc evaluations underscoring the need for transparent risk-benefit data; for example, while mandates mitigated outbreaks in nursing homes (reducing COVID deaths by 20-30% in mandated facilities per 2022 analyses), they amplified distrust when side effect underreporting or EUA fact sheets omitted long-term unknowns, eroding future voluntary compliance.^[146]^[147] Ongoing debates highlight that while empirical evidence supports vaccination's causal role in curbing mortality during peak waves, mandates' override of personalized consent—without robust exemptions for natural immunity or contraindications—risks causal harms to trust in health institutions, as seen in vaccination hesitancy rising 5-15% in mandate jurisdictions per 2023 surveys.^[148]

Fetal Tissue and Ethical Sourcing

In the United States, federal law mandates that informed consent for fetal tissue donation in research must be obtained independently from the consent for abortion, with the abortion consent secured prior to any request for tissue donation.^[149] This process requires written consent from the woman donating the tissue, explicitly stating that the donation will not influence the timing, method, or decision regarding the abortion, and prohibiting any alteration of the abortion procedure to acquire viable tissue for research.^[149] The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reinforces these requirements through policies applicable to funded research, stipulating that consent forms disclose the research's purpose, potential uses of the tissue, the woman's right to limit or revoke donation (though revocation may not be feasible post-procedure), and assurances against financial incentives that could coerce participation.^[150] Ethical guidelines from organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) emphasize that consent must include full disclosure of the research's nature, including therapeutic or non-therapeutic aims, and the right to anonymity or publication restrictions, while prohibiting any remuneration beyond reasonable costs to avoid commodification.^[151] The International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) has proposed standardized consent protocols to enhance transparency, recommending that donors be informed of tissue disposition, potential commercialization of derivatives, and eligibility verification under local laws before approaching for consent.^[152] For non-transplantation research, institutions must verify that tissue is sourced ethically, often through institutional review boards (IRBs) that scrutinize procurement chains to prevent profit-driven alterations in abortion practices.^[153] Controversies surrounding ethical sourcing intensified in 2015 following undercover videos alleging that abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, profited from fetal tissue sales in violation of consent and anti-trafficking laws; however, multiple federal investigations, including by the U.S. Department of Justice and congressional committees, concluded no criminal violations occurred, though some clinics reimbursed costs exceeding federal allowances, prompting enhanced oversight.^[154] Critics, including bioethicists, argue that even compliant sourcing risks indirect incentives for abortions by creating demand for tissue, particularly for high-value research like vaccine development—where historical cell lines such as HEK-293, derived from a 1973 elective abortion without contemporaneous research consent, continue to underpin testing for COVID-19 vaccines without ongoing maternal input.^[155] Proponents counter that such research has yielded empirical benefits, including polio and rubella vaccines, and that post-1993 laws (Public Law 103-43) established safeguards absent in earlier derivations.^[156] Regulatory fluctuations underscore sourcing tensions: In June 2019, the Trump administration imposed NIH restrictions barring intramural fetal tissue use and requiring extramural grants to source from single providers under IRB review, citing ethical concerns over procurement opacity; these were rescinded in April 2021 under the Biden administration, restoring prior flexibilities amid arguments that curbs hindered scientific progress without addressing core consent issues.^[157] State-level variations persist, with some jurisdictions mandating additional disclosures or prohibiting certain uses, reflecting debates on whether maternal consent suffices given the fetus's non-autonomous status and potential for alternatives like induced pluripotent stem cells, though the latter have not fully replicated fetal tissue's developmental fidelity in models.^[158] Academic sources advocating unrestricted access often exhibit institutional alignment with pro-choice frameworks, potentially underemphasizing long-term ethical externalities like normalized tissue commodification.^[159]

End-of-Life and Euthanasia Decisions

In jurisdictions permitting euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, informed consent mandates that patients demonstrate decision-making capacity, comprehend the terminal prognosis and alternatives such as palliative care, and express a voluntary request free from coercion.^[160] For instance, Oregon's Death with Dignity Act requires two oral requests separated by at least 15 days, a written request witnessed by two non-relatives, and confirmation by two physicians that the patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less to live, understands the consequences, and is acting voluntarily.^[160] Similar criteria apply in the Netherlands, where euthanasia under the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act demands a voluntary and well-considered request from a patient experiencing unbearable suffering without prospect of improvement, verified by at least one independent physician.^[161] In Canada, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) under Bill C-14 and subsequent amendments stipulates that eligible adults must provide informed consent after being informed of all reasonable treatment options, the prognosis, and risks, with capacity assessed to ensure the decision is not influenced by external pressures; as of 2023, over 13,000 MAiD provisions occurred annually, with safeguards including mandatory waiting periods and consultations.^[162] Belgium's law echoes these, requiring a repeated voluntary request from a patient in a medically futile situation, with unbearable physical or mental suffering, and independent physician review to affirm consent's authenticity.^[161] Advance directives for euthanasia are permitted in the Netherlands but not binding if circumstances change, emphasizing contemporaneous capacity to mitigate risks of outdated consent.^[163] Assessing capacity in end-of-life contexts poses challenges, as terminal illness, pain, opioids, or depression can impair cognition, yet empirical studies indicate physicians often overestimate or underestimate it inconsistently; one analysis found oncologists identified incapacity in older cancer patients at rates no better than chance, highlighting the need for structured tools like the Aid to Capacity Evaluation.^[164] Voluntarism requires not only understanding but alignment with the patient's authentic values, potentially compromised by family dynamics or resource constraints, as evidenced in qualitative reviews of palliative care decisions.^[165] Critics argue that even with safeguards, informed consent in euthanasia risks erosion due to subtle coercion, such as socioeconomic pressures or cultural expectations of not burdening families, with reports from Belgium and the Netherlands documenting cases where patients cited financial strain or caregiver fatigue as factors, though official reviews attribute most to suffering alone.^[166] Slippery slope concerns arise from expansions, as Canada's MAiD eligibility broadened from terminal to non-terminal conditions by 2021, raising questions about consent's robustness in psychiatric cases where capacity is contested; studies show up to 20% of requests involve mental illness, with debates over whether depression invalidates voluntariness.^[167] Empirical data from legalized regimes indicate low overt abuse rates—under 1% non-voluntary cases in Dutch reviews—but underscore vigilance, as undetected undue influence may undermine consent's causal validity.^[161]

Emerging Developments

Electronic informed consent processes utilize digital platforms to present, explain, and document patient or participant agreement, often incorporating multimedia such as videos, interactive quizzes, and adaptive interfaces to enhance comprehension over traditional paper forms. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance in 2020 recommending electronic systems for clinical investigations, provided they ensure the same information conveyance and voluntariness as paper methods, with electronic signatures compliant under 21 CFR Part 11 for record trustworthiness and audit trails.^[168] Similarly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services affirmed in 2016 that electronic signatures satisfy regulatory requirements for written consent when they bind the signer to the document's content. These frameworks aim to facilitate remote consenting, particularly in trials, by allowing self-paced review and real-time Q&A, though implementation requires validation of system security against unauthorized access.^[169] Studies indicate e-consent improves participant understanding and enrollment rates; a 2023 systematic review found digital tools increased comprehension scores by 10-20% in clinical trials compared to static forms, attributing gains to interactive elements like glossaries and progress trackers.^[170] A 2021 systematic review of digital tools in consent processes reported higher retention of key risks and benefits, with multimedia formats reducing cognitive load, though effects varied by literacy levels.^[171] Economically, e-consent reduces printing and storage costs by up to 50% in large biobanks, per implementation reports, while enabling dynamic updates to reflect evolving study protocols without reprinting.^[172] However, a 2023 review highlighted practical benefits tempered by administrative hurdles, such as workflow integration delays in 30% of surveyed U.S. cancer centers.^[173] AI integration extends digital consent by generating personalized explanations or simulating dialogues to assess understanding, as explored in oncological surgery contexts where algorithms tailor risk disclosures based on patient profiles.^[174] A 2025 study tested large language models like GPT-4 for cancer trial education, finding AI-generated summaries improved recall of eligibility criteria by 15% over standard forms, though requiring clinician verification to mitigate factual errors.^[175] In ambient clinical documentation, a 2025 quality improvement initiative reported 85% patient satisfaction with AI-assisted consent explanations, but emphasized explicit disclosure of AI involvement to maintain trust.^[176] Patient surveys from 2024 indicated 70% support for AI disclosure in diagnostics, favoring details on accuracy rates and override mechanisms, underscoring ethical needs for transparency amid AI's opaque decision pathways.^[177] Challenges persist in both domains, including legal validity where e-signatures may fail under digital divides affecting 15-20% of low-resource participants, per a 2025 review, and privacy risks from data breaches in non-compliant platforms.^[178] AI-specific issues involve algorithmic biases amplifying inequities, as non-diverse training data can skew explanations, with a 2024 framework recommending tiered consent levels for AI use—full disclosure for high-stakes decisions.^[179] A 2023 analysis noted e-consent's enrollment boosts offset by 25% dropout risks from technical glitches, advocating hybrid models blending AI with human oversight to verify comprehension causally linked to better outcomes.^[180] These developments signal a shift toward scalable, adaptive consent but necessitate rigorous validation to preserve autonomy without introducing undue coercion through technological opacity.^[181]

Recent Legislative Reforms

In the United States, legislative reforms since 2023 have increasingly emphasized enhanced disclosure requirements and restrictions on procedures for minors, particularly in reproductive health, gender-related interventions, and vaccinations, amid debates over long-term risks and parental authority. These changes often mandate specific information on alternatives, potential adverse effects, and fetal viability to ensure patients or guardians understand irreversible consequences before consenting. For example, Texas enacted House Bill 2023, effective September 1, 2025, requiring health care providers to obtain written informed consent prior to administering COVID-19 vaccines, including disclosures of manufacturer liability protections under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and any known risks such as myocarditis.^[182] Post the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision, at least 14 states strengthened abortion informed consent protocols by 2025, mandating ultrasounds, printed materials on fetal pain perception starting at 15 weeks gestation, and 24- to 72-hour waiting periods to deliberate risks like breast cancer links and psychological impacts, as evidenced in peer-reviewed studies cited in state statutes. Florida's 2023 reforms reinstated parental notification and consent for minors' abortions, overturning prior judicial bypass provisions that allowed unnotified procedures, thereby prioritizing familial involvement in decisions affecting fertility.^[183]^[184] Regarding gender-related medical interventions, 25 states by mid-2025 had prohibited puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors, rendering prior consent processes moot as the treatments became unlawful due to insufficient long-term safety data from randomized controlled trials and high regret rates documented in European systematic reviews leading to similar restrictions abroad. These bans, upheld in federal courts against equal protection challenges, shifted focus to psychological evaluations and reversible therapies, with exceptions only for documented disorders of sex development requiring multidisciplinary oversight.^[185]^[106] Other targeted reforms include Wisconsin's 2023 law mandating verbal or written consent for sensitive examinations like pelvic exams on unconscious patients, with civil penalties for non-compliance to prevent unconsented invasive procedures often linked to training on anesthetized individuals. Federally, the introduced Ultrasound Informed Consent Act (H.R. 48, 2025) seeks to require pre-abortion ultrasounds viewable by patients, though it remains pending, reflecting ongoing pushes for visual aids in consent to counter claims of inadequate risk communication in high-volume clinic settings.^[186]^[187]

Challenges in Global and Telehealth Contexts

In global health settings, informed consent processes encounter significant obstacles stemming from divergent cultural norms and regulatory frameworks. While Western models prioritize individual autonomy and written documentation, many non-Western societies, particularly in Africa, emphasize collective decision-making involving family elders, community leaders, or gatekeepers such as chiefs, which can conflict with individualistic consent requirements.^[188] For instance, in rural Ghanaian communities, research protocols often necessitate prior approval from traditional authorities before individual solicitation, potentially introducing coercion risks through public announcements or dependency dynamics.^[188] Similarly, in West African countries like Mali, Senegal, and Côte d’Ivoire, cultural diversity and oral traditions in local languages hinder comprehension of consent forms typically drafted in colonial languages such as French or English, with audits revealing participants signing documents they partially or fully fail to understand.^[189] Low literacy rates and socioeconomic dependencies exacerbate these issues in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where approximately 100 million equids and their owners in resource-poor areas face barriers like illiteracy preventing reading of research details or signing forms, often leading to thumb-printing alternatives and suspicion toward formal documentation associated with government impositions.^[190] Regulatory variations further complicate enforcement; international standards like ICH-GCP mandate language-appropriate written informed consent forms (ICFs), yet many LMICs lack robust local ethical review capacities or harmonized laws, resulting in inconsistent application and vulnerability to undue influence from power imbalances between researchers and participants.^[189]^[190] Telehealth introduces additional challenges to informed consent, particularly in verifying patient identity and ensuring genuine comprehension without in-person interaction. Under U.S. HIPAA guidelines, providers must implement procedures for initial remote identity verification, such as multi-factor authentication or referral checks, but risks persist in first consultations or compromised settings, where patients may be in public spaces like workplaces, leading to potential breaches if others overhear sensitive discussions.^[191] Explicit consent is required for using unsecure channels or when privacy cannot be assured, yet the absence of physical cues impairs assessment of understanding, especially for complex risks and benefits.^[191] Privacy and data security concerns amplify in cross-border telehealth, where varying regulations—such as stricter EU data protection versus U.S. flexibility—create compliance gaps, alongside cyber vulnerabilities like breaches that telemedicine platforms face, with proposed mitigations including encryption but persistent risks from inadequate infrastructure.^[192] The digital divide limits access in global contexts, as low-resource patients may lack reliable internet or devices, undermining equitable consent, while the lack of physical examination in remote settings raises ethical questions about fully informing patients of diagnostic limitations, a issue heightened post-2020 COVID-19 expansions.^[192] Solutions like audio-visual aids and impartial witnesses have been suggested, but implementation varies, often failing to fully bridge comprehension gaps in diverse linguistic environments.^[189]

References

[1]
Informed Consent - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Informed consent is a process in which a healthcare professional educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or ...Continuing Education Activity · Introduction · Function · Issues of Concern
[2]
Definition of informed consent - NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms
A process in which patients are given important information, including possible risks and benefits, about a medical procedure or treatment, genetic testing, or ...
[3]
Informed Consent - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 20, 2011 · Informed consent is a legitimacy requirement for certain actions. Inadequately informed consent makes certain intrusions impermissible.Why informed consent? · Informed consent · Exceptions to informed consent
[4]
The Nuremberg Code | Holocaust Encyclopedia
The Nuremberg Code · 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. · 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for ...
[5]
Informed consent in human experimentation before the Nuremberg ...
The Nuremberg code of 1947 is generally regarded as the first document to set out ethical regulations in human experimentation based on informed consent.
[6]
Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code
Nov 13, 1997 · Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects' human rights. The key contribution ...
[7]
Informed Consent FAQs - HHS.gov
Informed consent is legally effective if it is both obtained from the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative and documented.
[8]
A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information
We review the history of informed consent as a legal and regulatory concept and the intended impact of the new key information section.
[9]
informed consent doctrine | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
The informed consent doctrine is a legal principle that holds healthcare providers accountable for ensuring that their patients are fully informed.
[10]
The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient ...
Jan 14, 2021 · Peer Review reports. Introduction. Written informed consent (IC) is considered a basic principle of medical practice. It provides information ...
[11]
Informed Consent—We Can and Should Do Better - JAMA Network
Apr 28, 2021 · Informed consent is fundamental to the ethical and legal doctrines respecting research participants' voluntary participation in clinical research.
[12]
The Limits of Informed Consent for an Overwhelmed Patient
In this paper, we examine the limits of informed consent with particular focus on ways in which various factors can overwhelm decision-making capacity.
[13]
When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review
There are conditions that render conventional informed consent truly impractical, such as untraceable participants or harm for participants.
[14]
Informed Consent - AMA Code of Medical Ethics
Informed consent to medical treatment is fundamental in both ethics and law. Patients have the right to receive information and ask questions about recommended ...
[15]
[PDF] Informed Consent - Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics
II. MEANING AND ELEMENTS. To define “informed consent” properly, appropriate criteria of information and consent must be identified.
[16]
The four criteria of truly informed consent for patients - STAT News
Jun 24, 2021 · The four criteria of truly informed consent for patients · Information disclosure · Competence · Comprehension · Voluntariness.
[17]
Principles of Bioethics - University of Washington
This principle is the basis for the practice of "informed consent" in the physician/patient transaction regarding health care. ... Beauchamp and Childress.
[18]
[PDF] Must Consent Be Informed? Patient rights, state authority, and the ...
Kristinsson (2007) capably explains why Kantian ethics could not justify informed consent. He does however find. 2 in Mill arguments supporting the positive ...
[19]
Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice - PMC
Informed consent, truth-telling, and confidentiality spring from the principle of autonomy, and each of them is discussed. In patient care situations, not ...
[20]
Informed Consent, Autonomy, False Beliefs, and Ignorance
Feb 6, 2025 · This essay argues against this widespread claim. A person's autonomy with respect to her decisions will not be compromised by either ignorance or false beliefs.
[21]
From informed consent to informed dissent in health care - NIH
In 1767 the patient Slater, who had broken his leg, was not experiencing a satisfactory healing and he therefore looked for a second professional opinion and ...
[22]
Informed Consent - Healthcare - USLegal
As early as 1767, doctors were charged with the tort of “battery” (i.e. ... Slater v. Baker and Stapleton). Within the United States, the seminal case ...
[23]
Request for Treatment: the evolution of consent - PMC - NIH
In 1767, the importance of consent was acknowledged by the courts for the first time when, in the legal case of Slater v. Baker & Stapleton, surgery was ...
[24]
[PDF] SLATER V. BAKER AND STAPLETON (C.B. 1767)
Jul 15, 2025 · It disclosed that the plaintiff's name was. Richard Slatter and that what actually happened was very different from what was presented at trial.
[25]
Consent and Informed Consent: Their Ongoing Evolutions in Clinical ...
Dec 6, 2007 · The primary evolution of consent in the patient–physician relationship began in Great Britain in 1767 in the British case, Slater v. Baker and ...
[26]
[PDF] The History of the Informed Consent Requirement in United States ...
Apr 12, 2001 · This paper will trace the development of informed consent as a legal doctrine. The paper will first consider numerous landmark cases, including ...
[27]
[PDF] A Tale of Two Countries: Parallel Visions for Informed Consent in the ...
Part IV tracks the history of U.K. informed consent law. Finally, Part V discusses the current U.K. informed consent debate and concludes that a model ...<|separator|>
[28]
[PDF] Rethinking Informed Consent
This argument dates to the origins of the informed consent in the common law doctrine of battery. See Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosps., 105 N.E. 92 ...
[29]
Schoendorff v. Society of New York Hosp., 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914)
It is the settled rule that such a hospital is not liable for the negligence of its physicians and nurses in the treatment of patients.
[30]
Salgo v. Leland Stanford etc. Bd. Trustees - Justia Law
On January 7th Dr. Ellis called on plaintiff in his hospital room and informed him that he was to do the aortography and would do it the next afternoon. He ...
[31]
Nuances of Informed Consent: The Paradigm of Regional Anesthesia
This case involved a patient named Martin Salgo who awoke paralyzed after aortography, having never been informed that such a risk existed. The decision held ...
[32]
Natanson v. Kline :: 1960 :: Kansas Supreme Court Decisions
In such event the consent of the patient to the proposed treatment is an informed consent. The burden of proof rests throughout the trial of the case upon ...
[33]
Canterbury v. Spence, No. 22099 (D.C. Cir. 1972) - Justia Law
It is well established that the physician must seek and secure his patient's consent before commencing an operation or other course of treatment.[32] It is also ...
[34]
Informed Consent: What Must a Physician Disclose to a Patient?
This article will discuss legal standards that define what types of risk and other information a physician must disclose in facilitating informed consent.Missing: peer- | Show results with:peer-
[35]
"Informed Consent in the Post-Modern Era" by Wendy K. Mariner
Since the 1960s, the common law of informed consent has stressed the need for physicians to provide information to patients to enable them to make informed ...
[36]
Informed consent: Past and present - PMC - NIH
Informed consent is one of the key elements for protection of welfare of patients or research participants.
[37]
Medicolegal Sidebar: Informed Consent in the Information Age - PMC
The seminal case that developed the doctrine of informed consent is that of Canterbury v Spence [2]. In this case, a young man who developed paralysis after ...
[38]
A History of Informed Consent in Research - Infonetica
In response to these wartime atrocities, the Nuremberg Code was established in 1947. This groundbreaking document outlined ten standards for ethical medical ...<|separator|>
[39]
Evaluating Medical Decision-Making Capacity in Practice - AAFP
Jul 1, 2018 · Capacity is the basis of informed consent. Patients have medical decision-making capacity if they can demonstrate understanding of the situation ...
[40]
Competency and Capacity - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
May 29, 2023 · Capacity is defined as a functional determination that an individual is or is not capable of making a medical decision within a given situation.
[41]
Assessment of decision-making capacity in adults - UpToDate
Feb 29, 2024 · The capacity to make one's own decisions is fundamental to the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and is a key component of informed ...
[42]
Capacity (Competence) and Incapacity - Special Subjects
Jan 29, 2024 · Legal capacity (also called competency) is a legal status; it cannot be determined by health care professionals. · People remain legally capable ...
[43]
AMA Code of Medical Ethics' Opinions on Patient Decision-Making ...
We know that not all patients have capacity (a clinical standard applying to a particular decision at a particular point in time) or competence (a legal ...<|separator|>
[44]
Read the Belmont Report | HHS.gov
Jul 15, 2025 · While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent.
[45]
45 CFR 46 - HHS.gov
Feb 11, 2025 · The HHS regulations for the protection of human subjects in research at 45 CFR 46 include five subparts. Subpart A, also known as the Common Rule, provides a ...45 CFR 46 FAQs · Subpart D · Revision of the Common Rule · Subpart B
[46]
Informed consent in clinical research: Revisiting few concepts and ...
An informed consent resides on its three critical and essential elements including voluntarism, information disclosure, and decision-making capacity.
[47]
Informed Consent Process and Patients' Rights - ProAssurance
After being appropriately informed of risks, benefits, and alternatives of a contemplated treatment, procedure, or high-risk medication, a patient (or their ...Informed Consent And Medical... · Documentation Of Informed... · Documenting Consent Obtained...
[48]
[PDF] CMS Manual System - Pub. 100-07 State Operations Provider ...
Apr 19, 2024 · Informed consent must be obtained, and the informed consent form must be placed in the patient's medical record, prior to surgery, except in the ...
[49]
Informed Consent and the Role of the Treating Physician
Jun 20, 2018 · In 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that informed consent must be obtained directly by the treating physician.
[50]
Medical Informed Consent: General Considerations for Physicians
Medical informed consent is essential to the physician's ability to diagnose and treat patients as well as the patient's right to accept or reject clinical ...
[51]
Key Informed Consent Elements & Guidelines - AORN
Sep 5, 2024 · Documentation should include the nature of treatment, the risk to the patient's life, efforts to obtain informed consent, and a statement that ...
[52]
The Paternalism Preference — Choosing Unshared Decision Making
Aug 13, 2015 · ... informed consent ... But though decision aids may mitigate cognitive and emotional overload, they assume that decisions will be shared.<|separator|>
[53]
Past, Present, and Future of Shared Decision-Making | Circulation
Jul 16, 2024 · The term shared decision-making (SDM) first appeared in the 1982 President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and ...
[54]
Shared decision making: a consideration of historical and political ...
May 12, 2017 · Through the history of medicine, shifts in the power balance have occurred in decision making between physician and patient2, and recent ...
[55]
The New Era of Informed Consent: Getting to a Reasonable-Patient ...
Apr 21, 2016 · In a 2012 review of 115 studies involving more than 33 000 patients, those who engaged in shared decision making and received a decision aid ( ...
[56]
Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific ...
This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes.Models Of Sdm · Measures Of Sdm · Decision Aids
[57]
Shared decision-making as a method of care - PMC - PubMed Central
Dec 2, 2022 · Shared decision-making (SDM) has been traditionally defined as a collaborative approach by which, in partnership with their clinician, patients are encouraged ...
[58]
Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An ...
Mar 8, 2022 · This study showed that most clinicians preferred SDM, but in daily practice performed paternalistic decision making more often than they wanted.
[59]
Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making ... - NIH
Mar 8, 2022 · SDM is often contrasted with paternalistic decision making, whereby clinicians take the diagnostic or treatment action which they consider best ...
[60]
Selective Paternalism - AMA Journal of Ethics
Shared decision making is an active dialogue between physician and patient with the goal of arriving at mutual understanding and agreement on a treatment plan.
[61]
What Does the Evolution From Informed Consent to Shared ...
This article examines the legal doctrine and ethical norm of informed consent and its deficiencies, particularly its concentration on physician disclosure ...
[62]
Shared decision-making as a method of care
Self-management logs, patient-reported outcome trends, results from ancillary laboratory and imaging tests can all support the problem-solving mode of SDM.
[63]
The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient ... - NIH
Jan 14, 2021 · Research on patients' comprehension of an informed consent's basic components shows that their level of understanding is limited.
[64]
Barriers to informed consent - ScienceDirect.com
Objectives: To provide oncology nurses with a review of barriers that may limit the ability of adults to provide informed consent. Data Sources ...
[65]
Challenges regarding informed consent in recruitment to clinical ...
Dec 11, 2023 · They acknowledged that language barriers, cognitive limitations, and disabilities often posed notable difficulties during the informed consent ...
[66]
Four reasons why too many informed consents to clinical research ...
(1) IC documents are too long to be read completely, thus, make it very difficult for potential participants to identify the material facts about the trial.
[67]
The barriers to obtaining informed consent identified from the articles...
The main barriers identified by the patients include: inadequate explanation about the intended procedure, family's influence in the decision making, fear of ...
[68]
Nuremberg Code: Directives for Human Experimentation | ORI
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. · The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society.
[69]
The Regulatory Framework for Protecting Humans in Research - NCBI
The first principle of the Nuremberg Code states that, “the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” This absolute requirement reflects ...HISTORY OF THE... · THE COMMON RULE · RECENT CONCERNS ABOUT...
[70]
[PDF] Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research ...
informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be expressed in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
[71]
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles ...
In medical research involving human subjects capable of giving informed consent, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, ...
[72]
45 CFR Part 46 -- Protection of Human Subjects - eCFR
(i) Informed consent must begin with a concise and focused presentation of the key information that is most likely to assist a prospective subject or legally ...Title 45 · Subpart D · Subpart B · Subpart A —Basic HHS Policy...
[73]
45 CFR § 46.116 - General requirements for informed consent.
An investigator shall obtain the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
[74]
21 CFR Part 50 Subpart B -- Informed Consent of Human Subjects
(a) Except as provided in § 56.109(c), informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written consent form approved by the IRB and signed and dated by the ...
[75]
[PDF] Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for Good Clinical ...
Nov 9, 2016 · Informed consent is documented by means of a written, signed and dated informed consent form. 1.29 Inspection. The act by a regulatory authority ...
[76]
[PDF] GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE (GCP) E6(R3) - ICH
May 19, 2023 · GCP E6(R3) is a Good Clinical Practice guideline from the ICH, currently under public consultation, endorsed on 19 May 2023.
[77]
Clinical trials - Regulation EU No 536/2014 - Public Health
The Regulation ensures a greater level of harmonisation of the rules for conducting clinical trials throughout the EU.EU Clinical Trial Portal and... · Transparency · Commission legal obligations...
[78]
Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the ...
The informed consent shall be documented. Adequate time shall be given for the subject or his or her legally designated representative to consider his or her ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[79]
WMA Declaration of Helsinki – Ethical Principles for Medical ...
Free and informed consent to remain in the research must be obtained as soon as possible from a legally authorized representative or, if they regain capacity to ...
[80]
Regulations: Good Clinical Practice and Clinical Trials - FDA
Protection of Human Subjects (Informed Consent) (21 CFR Part 50) · Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators (21 CFR Part 54) · Institutional Review Boards ...
[81]
Effects on Research | The U.S. Public Health Service ... - CDC
Sep 4, 2024 · The Untreated Syphilis Study at Tuskegee was conducted between 1932 and 1972 to observe the natural history of untreated syphilis. View All.
[82]
Landscape of informed consent practices and challenges in point‐of ...
Waivers or modifications of informed consent may be less appropriate for trials in which the intervention is novel, under investigation for regulatory ...
[83]
[PDF] irb template social- behavioral adult participant informed consent
Example: This research presents risk of loss of confidentiality, emotional and/or psychological distress because the surveys involve sensitive questions about ...
[84]
Social and Behavioral Research - UCSF IRB
Mar 3, 2025 · Consent: The IRB expects that most studies will be conducted with the fully informed, individual consent of each participant. Consent often ...
[85]
About Informed Consent - Organizing Your Social Sciences ...
This guide describes how to successfully complete specific assignments commonly assigned in social sciences and behavioral sciences courses.
[86]
Informed Consent Guidance | Johns Hopkins Medicine
Under these regulations, there are six general requirements for informed consent: 1) Consent Required: Investigators may involve human participants in research ...What does informed consent... · The Informed Consent Process
[87]
Informed Consent Guidelines & Templates
Informed consent is the process of telling potential research participants about the key elements of a research study and what their participation will involve.
[88]
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct
General Principles, Section 1: Resolving Ethical Issues, Section 2: Competence, Section 3: Human Relations, Section 4: Privacy and Confidentiality.
[89]
3.3: APA Ethics Code Standard 8 - Social Sci LibreTexts
Oct 7, 2025 · Standards 8.02 to 8.05 are about informed consent. Again, informed consent means obtaining and documenting people's agreement to participate in ...
[90]
Deception & Debriefing – Institutional Review Board - Utah IRB
Deception is the intentional misleading of participants or the withholding of full information about the nature of a research experiment or procedure.
[91]
Using Deception and Incomplete Disclosure in Research
If the study involves deception, a plan for effective and respectful debriefing and dehoaxing is necessary to minimize risk to participants. The primary goals ...When Is Deception Or... · Consent And Debriefing · Irb Considerations
[92]
MODIFICATIONS AND WAIVERS OF INFORMED CONSENT - NCBI
A research ethics committee may waive informed consent if it is convinced that the research would not be feasible or practicable to carry out without the waiver ...
[93]
Waivers of Informed Consent Guidelines
Waivers of informed consent are primarily requested for projects involving the secondary analysis of existing data or in projects involving deception. To waive ...
[94]
Types of Waivers of Consent - Human Subjects Office
A researcher can request a waiver of one or more elements of informed consent when they need to withhold certain information about the study that might affect ...
[95]
Consent & Waiver of Consent: Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office
The IRB may approve research where investigators leave out or alter elements of informed consent, provided the research meets all applicable regulations.
[96]
The neuroscience of adolescent decision-making - PubMed Central
A new wave of developmental research takes a neuroeconomic approach to specify what decision processes are changing during adolescence.
[97]
A survey of the legal frameworks on medical decision-making in ...
Nov 25, 2024 · The minimum age at which minors can consent to medical treatment varies substantially across Europe, ranging from sixteen or eighteen years in some countries.
[98]
Obtaining Child Assent and Parent Consent in Research
The federal regulations defines children as persons who have not attained the legal age for consent to treatment or procedures involved in research, under the ...
[99]
Consent to Treatment of Minors - PMC - NIH
If granted, the minor will have the same legal rights as an adult, including the right to consent to (and refuse) medical treatment. If a minor patient advises ...
[100]
Exploration for physicians of the mature minor doctrine - PubMed
The "mature minor doctrine" is the common-law rule that allows an adolescent who is mature to give consent for medical care.
[101]
State Laws on Minor Consent for Routine Medical Care
A minor may consent for medical treatment if the minor understands the nature and purpose of the proposed examination or treatment and its probable outcome, and ...
[102]
Children and young people: consent to treatment - NHS
Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding.
[103]
Minors' Refusal of Life-Saving Therapies - AMA Journal of Ethics
Most states provide certain universal exceptions, instances in which minors can give medical consent. One is for emergency care when a parent is not available ...
[104]
Children and Minors in Research - UCSF IRB
Aug 25, 2025 · Federal regulations classify four permissible categories for research involving children, based on degree of risk and type of prospective benefit.
[105]
25 states have bans on trans health care for kids : Shots - NPR
just a few years ago, ...
[106]
States are banning gender-affirming care for minors. What does that ...
Feb 20, 2024 · More than 20 US states have banned or severely limited treatment to align a young person's body with their gender identity.
[107]
Capacity to consent: a scoping review of youth decision-making ...
Oct 8, 2024 · This scoping review identified the currently available data regarding adolescent capacity to consent to gender-affirming medical treatments.
[108]
Protecting Incapacitated Patients' Rights and Best Interests - NIH
Nov 3, 2023 · This article aims to briefly examine informed consent and elaborate on protecting incapacitated patients' autonomy and best interest.
[109]
[PDF] MAKING DECISIONS FOR INCAPACITATED PATIENTS:
Sep 21, 2023 · All patients are presumed to have decision-making capacity. • Informed consent may be either implied or expressed. Resolving Ethical Dilemmas ...
[110]
The ethics of surrogate decision making - PMC - NIH
Surrogate decisions should consider patient values, but often use "substituted judgment" and act in best interest. California law requires considering known ...
[111]
[PDF] Substituted Interests and Best Judgments | OHSU
Apr 25, 2022 · The substituted interests model guides surrogates to decide based on the patient's values, emphasizing their authentic interests, not just what ...
[112]
Who Makes Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Who Have No ...
Hospital ethics committees help make decisions for unrepresented patients by deliberating and then offering a recommendation. Many hospitals consult an ethics ...
[113]
Challenges of Informed Consent in Incapacitated Patients
Apr 12, 2024 · If gaining informed consent in incapacitated and unbefriended patients isn't viable, institutions can follow any of these recommendations.
[114]
Aspects of vulnerable patients and informed consent in clinical trials
In this paper we are discussing the rationale behind informed consent in clinical trials focusing on vulnerable patients from the European and German viewpoint.
[115]
Illusory Consent: When an Incapacitated Patient Agrees to Treatment
Medical treatment requires informed consent which in turn requires decision making capacity When a patient with questionable capacity does not resist ...Missing: guidelines | Show results with:guidelines
[116]
Healthcare Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Without Surrogates
Jul 12, 2017 · Decisions for incapacitated patients without surrogates are made in their best interest, considering known values, and using a Bioethics ...<|separator|>
[117]
[PDF] Policy Statement—Consent for Emergency Medical Services for ...
Jul 25, 2011 · The legal basis for taking action in an emergency when consent is not available is known as the “emergency exception rule.” The emergency ...
[118]
HIPAA and patient consent in emergency medical services (EMS)
May 29, 2024 · For example, implied consent would apply to patients who are unconscious, nonverbal, severely injured, or suffering from severe medical ...
[119]
INFORMED CONSENT IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
According to this emergency exception, if immediate treatment is required to prevent death or other serious harm to a patient, that treatment may be provided ...
[120]
Understanding Implied Consent in Emergency Healthcare - ACLSNow
Jul 8, 2025 · Implied consent applies when a person's actions or circumstances suggest they agree to something, even without directly saying so. This often ...
[121]
Informed Consent | Manual - Indian Health Service
Emergency Situations: When the need for care is urgent, the patient is unable to give consent, and it is not feasible to contact the patient's next of kin, then ...
[122]
Core concepts of consent in medical practice - PMC - NIH
Failure to get informed consent breaches the professional or legal standard of care in medical advice and can attract medical litigation based on negligence ...
[123]
Informed Consent Laws for Abortion: What Do Women Have a "Right ...
Mar 11, 2021 · As of 2019, 30 US states have adopted abortion-specific informed consent laws that require state health departments to develop and ...<|separator|>
[124]
Counseling and Waiting Period Requirements for Abortion
All 12 states with total abortion bans also require counseling and waiting periods. In these states, the policies are generally not enforced.
[125]
Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence
This article examines whether a fetus feels pain and if so, whether safe and effective techniques exist for providing direct fetal anesthesia or analgesia.
[126]
Fetal Pain: Facts and the Informed Consent Conundrum
Sep 26, 2025 · Informed by the data, fetal pain is treated during fetal surgery as early as 15 weeks,79,80 and in neonates at 22-23 weeks or earlier.
[127]
[PDF] Fact Sheet: Abortion and Mental Health - Congress.gov
This is backed up by data from Add Health showing that women who have abortions are 30 percent more likely to experience depression and 23 percent more likely ...<|separator|>
[128]
The Effects of Abortion Decision Rightness and Decision Type on ...
May 11, 2023 · But in a separate analysis of the same sample of women, ANSIRH elsewhere reported high levels of regret (41-66%), sadness (64-74%), guilt (53-63 ...
[129]
Is relief the most common reaction to abortion?... - F1000Research
Feb 26, 2025 · More common reactions were guilt (93%), grief (85%), regret (85%), anger (81%), and others. This predominance of negative reactions in this ...<|separator|>
[130]
Medicaid sterilization consent practices increase barriers to effective ...
Feb 2, 2023 · Researchers estimate that the Sterilization Consent Form leads to many unfilled procedures for Medicaid patients – more than 25% of desired tubal ligations.
[131]
Joint Statement on Reports of Hysterectomies Performed Without ...
Sep 29, 2020 · Recent reports about medically unnecessary hysterectomies performed without full and informed patient consent in a facility operated by the US Immigration and ...
[132]
Federal Sterilization Policy: Unintended Consequences
For example, such a woman cannot have a tubal sterilization performed if she fails to sign the consent form at least 30 days prior to her procedure or if she ...
[133]
Jacobson v. Massachusetts | 197 U.S. 11 (1905)
This case involves the validity, under the Constitution of the United States, of certain provisions in the statutes of Massachusetts relating to vaccination.Missing: consent | Show results with:consent
[134]
JACOBSON v. MASSACHUSETTS: 1 IMPACT ON INFORMED ...
Whereas informed consent is, in theory, the rule with other medical procedures, state legislatures have negated informed consent for vaccines by en- actment of ...
[135]
Learning from five bad arguments against mandatory vaccination
Apr 25, 2023 · Vaccination mandates violate the Nuremberg Code because COVID-19 vaccines are 'experimental' and because mandates undermine the voluntariness ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
[136]
[PDF] Exception From Informed Consent Requirements for Emergency ...
The IRB must find and document that the research involves subjects unable to consent and that the research is subject to FDA's regulations5 and will be carried ...<|separator|>
[137]
[PDF] COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates – Recent Cases
Oct 8, 2021 · July 22, 2021): This action, regarding an employer vaccine mandate challenge, has been removed to federal court. Allegations include violation ...
[138]
PREP Act Question and Answers - ASPR
The only exception is for claims of willful misconduct. (See Question: Are There Any Limitations on Immunity From Liability?). 2. Who May be Afforded Immunity ...
[139]
COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit ...
We estimate that 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net ...
[140]
The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19 - Frontiers
In this review, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding initiation and conduct of clinical trials, focusing on novel COVID-19 therapeutic, vaccine, or ...
[141]
The effect of a proof-of-vaccination requirement, incentive payments ...
The combination of a proof-of-vaccination requirement, incentive payments, and vaccine mandates increased vaccination rates among adults in NYC.
[142]
State COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and Uptake Among Health Care ...
Aug 14, 2024 · This repeated cross-sectional study found that state COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs were associated with increased vaccine uptake among HCWs.
[143]
Lives and life-Years Saved From COVID-19 Vaccination
Findings This comparative effectiveness study found that COVID-19 vaccinations averted 2.5 million deaths during 2020-2024 (sensitivity range estimates, 1.4-4. ...
[144]
The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy - NIH
We argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good.
[145]
Exception from Informed Consent Requirements for Emergency ...
Mar 29, 2018 · Emergency research involves life-threatening conditions where unproven treatments are needed, the patient cannot consent, and the treatment ...
[146]
[PDF] The Health and Employment Effects of Employer Vaccination ...
Our study combines data from several sources on nursing home vaccine mandates, employment, and patient health. 4.2 Vaccine Mandates. We collected data on ...<|separator|>
[147]
Comparative effectiveness of mandates and financial policies ...
Although there are few empirical tests relevant to COVID-19 vaccination mandates, the evidence does not appear to support this concern [5]. Some experts ...
[148]
The effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake, health outcomes ...
Jul 8, 2022 · We argue that the incentive effect of COVID certificates on vaccine uptake may be most critical and has averted adverse health and economic outcomes.
[149]
42 U.S. Code § 289g-1 - Research on transplantation of fetal tissue
(i). the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research; · (ii).
[150]
NOT-OD-16-033: NIH Policy on Informed Consent for Human Fetal ...
Feb 11, 2016 · The purpose of this guide notice is to inform NIH-funded grantees and contractors of certain expectations when conducting human fetal tissue ...Missing: guidelines | Show results with:guidelines
[151]
Research Using Human Fetal Tissue - AMA Code of Medical Ethics
Informed consent includes a disclosure of the nature of the research including the purpose of using fetal tissue, as well as informing the woman of a right to ...
[152]
The need for a standard for informed consent for collection of human ...
The ISSCR has developed the Informed Consent Standards for Human Fetal Tissue Donation and Research to promote uniformity and transparency in tissue donation
[153]
Acquisition, Use, and Disposition of Donated Human Fetal Tissue for ...
Requirements that Apply to Research and Teaching All personnel who use human fetal tissue in research or teaching must: submit a request for human fetal tissue ...
[154]
Fetal Tissue Research: A Weapon and a Casualty in the War ...
Feb 9, 2016 · To ensure it meets the highest ethical standards, fetal tissue research has been subject to stringent laws and regulations for decades. Abortion ...
[155]
Ethical Ground Rules for Fetal Tissue Research in ... - CHEST Journal
More appropriate requestors of informed consent may include a senior member of the research team or a liaison from the local organ procurement agency. Once ...
[156]
Human Fetal Tissue Research: Frequently Asked Questions
Aug 8, 2019 · This report provides answers to frequently asked questions concerning the regulation and use of human fetal tissue in research.
[157]
Biden administration scraps human fetal tissue research restrictions
The Trump administration's policy, announced in June of 2019, prohibited NIH's in-house scientists from conducting research using human fetal tissue, which ...
[158]
Ethical Research Involving Fetal Human Subjects
Dec 1, 2023 · This guideline on fetal tissue research discusses the moral status of the human fetus, the state of ethics for medical research on vulnerable subjects.
[159]
Attitudes towards human fetal tissue research
Jun 13, 2023 · However, research using HFT has been controversial due to the ethical issues of using the fetus as it is developing into a human being, ...
[160]
Conceptual, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Physician ... - NCBI
All require that patients requesting physician-assisted death satisfy three criteria: (1) terminal illness through a prognosis of having 6 months or less to ...
[161]
Developments Under Assisted Dying Legislation: The Experience in ...
Euthanasia request and procedural requirements in Belgium & The Netherlands. Patient request. The patient request must be voluntary and well-considered. The ...
[162]
Medical Assistance in Dying (Bill C-14, as Assented to on June 17 ...
Feb 2, 2023 · Bill C-14 is informed by the laws relating to medical assistance in dying in other jurisdictions, as well as research on how those regimes work in practice.
[163]
[PDF] Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide - Bios Centre
Such directives requesting euthanasia in the Netherlands have been legal for many years, but in the expert evidence presented to the UK's Commission on.
[164]
Assessing the decision making capacity of terminally ill patients with ...
In one recent study, physicians identified older cancer patients as lacking capacity to make informed treatment decisions at a rate no greater than chance when ...
[165]
Informed Consent and the Capacity for Voluntarism - Psychiatry Online
Voluntarism is critical for the fulfillment of the ideal of informed consent. From an ethical perspective, voluntarism is the principle that embodies respect ...Abstract · Influences On Voluntarism · Voluntarism: Four Domains Of...
[166]
Euthanasia and assisted suicide – when choice is an illusion and ...
Nov 26, 2020 · Euthanasia in the context of pressure, coercion, undue influence and cultural expectation is difficult to identify, but involves patients ...
[167]
A Critical Examination of Ethical and Societal Implications
Aug 5, 2024 · preserve it. Slippery Slope Concerns. Potential for Abuse and Coercion. One of the primary ethical arguments against the legalization of ...
[168]
Use of Electronic Informed Consent in Clinical Investigations - FDA
May 5, 2020 · This guidance provides recommendations on the use of electronic systems and processes that may employ multiple electronic media to obtain informed consent.
[169]
21 CFR Part 11 -- Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures - eCFR
This part applies to records in electronic form that are created, modified, maintained, archived, retrieved, or transmitted, under any records requirements set ...Part 11--Electronic Records... · Subpart A--General... · Subpart B--Electronic...Missing: informed | Show results with:informed
[170]
Comparative Effectiveness of eConsent: Systematic Review - NIH
Sep 1, 2023 · In addition to patient-centered challenges of the ICF process, administrative aspects of the consenting process can pose challenges to ...
[171]
Digital tools in the informed consent process: a systematic review
Feb 27, 2021 · We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice.
[172]
[PDF] Replacing-Paper-Informed-Consent-for-Research-2020.pdf
Biobanks, which aim to recruit a large number of participants to contribute samples, have created unique challenges in informed consent: the sheer number of ...
[173]
Electronic Consent at US Cancer Centers: A Survey of Practices ...
Jan 3, 2023 · Obstacles to e-consenting included challenges with procuring or maintaining hardware, content management, workflow integration, and digital ...
[174]
Enhancing informed consent in oncological surgery through digital ...
This paper explores the potential of digital platforms and artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the informed consent process.
[175]
AI meets informed consent: a new era for clinical trial communication
Mar 18, 2025 · This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance patient education regarding cancer clinical trials.
[176]
Informed Consent for Ambient Documentation Using Generative AI ...
Jul 22, 2025 · This quality improvement study explores clinician and patient experiences with informed consent processes for ambient clinical documentation ...
[177]
Patient perspectives on informed consent for medical AI - NIH
This study aims to determine whether doctors should disclose the use of AI tools in diagnosis and what kind of information should be provided.
[178]
Digitalizing informed consent in healthcare: a scoping review
Jul 2, 2025 · Challenges include ensuring legal validity and maintaining consistent information across formats. Several studies emphasized that AI tools ...
[179]
An Ethically Supported Framework for Determining Patient ...
May 21, 2024 · Therefore, hospital leaders need guidance on how much, or how little, to tell patients about the use of AI in their care. Informed consent (IC) ...
[180]
Electronic informed consent: effects on enrolment, practical ... - NIH
The purpose of this review is to investigate the effect of using e-IC on enrolment, practical and economic benefits, challenges, and drawbacks
[181]
[PDF] The benefits of fully electronic consent management and ... - Frontiers
Sep 29, 2025 · Conclusion: Fully electronic informed consent collection is the “best practice” approach to ensure valid CFs and increase initial patient ...
[182]
New law mandates informed consent for COVID-19 vaccines
Sep 18, 2025 · By Jonathan Nelson · As of September 1, 2025, physicians and other health care providers must obtain written informed consent from patients ...Missing: changes | Show results with:changes<|separator|>
[183]
Second quarter 2025 overview: State laws affecting health plan ...
Jun 26, 2025 · This quarter has seen a wave of new state-level legislation and pivotal court rulings that are reshaping access to both abortion services and ...
[184]
Summary State Abortion Laws: Protections and Restrictions
Requires Abortion Medication Be Delivered in Person · Enforces a Mandatory Waiting Period Between Pre-Abortion Counseling and an Abortion · Prohibits Telemedicine ...
[185]
Policy Tracker: Youth Access to Gender Affirming Care and State ...
This tracker provides an overview of state laws/policies restricting minor access to gender affirming care and any associated litigation by state, ...Missing: reforms | Show results with:reforms
[186]
Informed Consent, State Legislatures - JD Supra
Wisconsin Governor Signs Pelvic Exam Informed Consent Bill, Vetoes Direct Primary Care Agreement Bill · The Illinois State Legislature Set to Take up BIPA Reform.
[187]
119th Congress (2025-2026): Ultrasound Informed Consent Act
Introduced in House (01/03/2025). Ultrasound Informed Consent Act. This bill requires abortion providers to conduct an ultrasound before performing an abortion.
[188]
Gurus and Griots: Revisiting the research informed consent process ...
Jul 23, 2021 · We discuss some theoretical, ethico-cultural, and methodological challenges associated with applying the universal, Western individualistic cultural value- ...
[189]
Informed Consent in West Africa: Bridging Regulatory Compliance ...
This article explores these complexities, examines CRO-implemented solutions, and proposes improvements to harmonize regulations with local realities.
[190]
Challenges Associated with Informed Consent in Low - NIH
In this perspective piece, we reflect on challenges encountered in achieving informed consent for research undertaken by an international non-governmental ...
[191]
HIPAA Guidelines on Telemedicine - Updated for 2025
Once the identity of the patient has been verified, the privacy of the consultation can also be challenging. Healthcare providers may need to obtain recorded ...
[192]
Applications and Challenges of Telemedicine: Privacy-Preservation ...
We discuss the challenges in the field of using telemedicine which are privacy preserving, data security, cost of infrastructures, lack of physical examination.