Skip to main content

Informed Consent

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
More Harm than Good?
  • 849 Accesses

Abstract

Informed consent is not just a basic ethical principle, it is a precondition for any medical or surgical procedure or diagnostic test. This means it is not a choice: it is mandatory in all areas of healthcare. Yet, in CAM, informed consent is often neglected. A survey of UK chiropractors, for instance, showed that only 23% always discuss serious risks of their treatments with their patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 14.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 22.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Chiropractors are not alone: the Canadian survey also revealed that most naturopaths, acupuncturists and homeopaths offer to diagnose or treat asthma.

  2. 2.

    In conventional medicine, it is usual to ask for explicit (often written) consent where a diagnostic procedure carries a significant risk of serious harm to the patient (e.g. exploratory surgery under general anaesthesia); by contrast, implied consent is generally deemed acceptable for low risk, non-invasive procedures (e.g. taking a sample of venous blood). In the latter case, the patient’s behaviour (i.e. not refusing the procedure) is considered to be sufficient evidence of consent. But in all cases, it is necessary that the patient has been provided with a sufficient explanation of the diagnostic procedure, otherwise consent will not be ‘informed’.

  3. 3.

    One may ask: why would one group of CAM practitioners (in this case chiropractors) adopt diagnostic methods from a fundamentally different CAM modality? After all, there is no obvious logical link between chiropractic conceptions of disease (i.e. subluxations, blockage of spinal segments, etc.) and the notion that iris colouration reflects bodily components. The answer, we believe, lies in the irrational mind-set of the CAM practitioner: freed from the normal imperatives of requiring plausibility and evidence, it becomes easy to uncritically accept superficially appealing yet fundamentally defective medical notions.

  4. 4.

    A related issue is the notion of conventional medicines as poisons: this mantra is frequently used by CAM proponents to alienate consumers from real healthcare and encourage them into the open arms of quacks.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Edzard Ernst or Kevin Smith .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ernst, E., Smith, K. (2018). Informed Consent. In: More Harm than Good?. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69941-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69941-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69940-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69941-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics