Iamsemisweet
Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011
From: The Great Northwest, USA
Status: offline
|
You tell me. You are the one that said that the intended purpose was to reduce abortions. I assume what you meant was that the intended purposes was to reduce the number of abortions. What does that have to do with informed consent? The purpose of informed consent is:
quote:
The doctrine of informed consent refers to the requirement that a physician, before obtaining the consent of his or her patient to treatment, inform the patient of the treatment's attendant risks. The doctrine is premised Page 783 on the fundamental principle that "[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body". Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 129, 105 N.E. 92 (1914) (Cardozo, J.), overruled on other grounds, Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 667, 143 N.E.2d 3, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1957). A necessary corollary to this principle is that the individual be given sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 783 (D.C. Cir.) [cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)]. Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26, 29-30, 666 P.2d 351 (1983). See Shultz, From Informed Consent to Patient Choice: A New Protected Interest, 95 Yale L.J. 219 (1985).
The doctrine of informed consent refers to the requirement that a physician, before obtaining the consent of his or her patient to treatment, inform the patient of the treatment's attendant risks. The doctrine is premised Page 783 on the fundamental principle that "[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body". Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 129, 105 N.E. 92 (1914) (Cardozo, J.), overruled on other grounds, Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 667, 143 N.E.2d 3, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1957). A necessary corollary to this principle is that the individual be given sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 783 (D.C. Cir.) [cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)]. Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26, 29-30, 666 P.2d 351 (1983). See Shultz, From Informed Consent to Patient Choice: A New Protected Interest, 95 Yale L.J. 219 (1985).
The purpose of informed consent is not to "reduce the number" of anything, it is to provide information about risks. So, whether you agree with such a law or not, if the purpose is to coerce someone out of a choice, what does that have to do with informed consent? If I had to witness open heart surgery before I had such an operation, it would probably scare the bejesus out of me enough not to have the operation. It would not, however, help me in making an intelligent decision about the surgery.
The fact is, such a requirement is simply punitive and a further attempt to coerce a woman not to have an abortion. You may consider that a laudable goal. I don't. I just think it is disingenuous to claim it has to do with informed consent, instead of calling it what it really is.
The doctrine of informed consent refers to the requirement that a physician, before obtaining the consent of his or her patient to treatment, inform the patient of the treatment's attendant risks. The doctrine is premised Page 783 on the fundamental principle that "[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body". Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 129, 105 N.E. 92 (1914) (Cardozo, J.), overruled on other grounds, Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 667, 143 N.E.2d 3, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1957). A necessary corollary to this principle is that the individual be given sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 783 (D.C. Cir.) [cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)]. Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26, 29-30, 666 P.2d 351 (1983). See Shultz, From Informed Consent to Patient Choice: A New Protected Interest, 95 Yale L.J. 219 (1985).
The doctrine of informed consent refers to the requirement that a physician, before obtaining the consent of his or her patient to treatment, inform the patient of the treatment's attendant risks. The doctrine is premised Page 783 on the fundamental principle that "[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body". Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 129, 105 N.E. 92 (1914) (Cardozo, J.), overruled on other grounds, Bing v. Thunig, 2 N.Y.2d 656, 667, 143 N.E.2d 3, 163 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1957). A necessary corollary to this principle is that the individual be given sufficient information to make an intelligent decision. See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 783 (D.C. Cir.) [cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)]. Smith v. Shannon, 100 Wn.2d 26, 29-30, 666 P.2d 351 (1983). See Shultz, From Informed Consent to Patient Choice: A New Protected Interest, 95 Yale L.J. 219 (1985).
< Message edited by Iamsemisweet -- 3/27/2012 9:40:12 AM >
_____________________________
Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.
|
RE: Arizona Con Wants To Force Women To Witness An Abor... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread