You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
The Limits of Informed Consent for an Overwhelmed Patient: Clinicians’ Role in Protecting Patients and Preventing Overwhelm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The AMA Journal of Ethic, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.9.peer2-1609 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Johan Bester, Cristie M Cole, Eric Kodish |
| Abstract |
In this paper, we examine the limits of informed consent with particular focus on ways in which various factors can overwhelm decision-making capacity. We introduce overwhelm as a phenomenon commonly experienced by patients in clinical settings and distinguish between emotional overwhelm and informational overload. We argue that in these situations, a clinician's primary duty is prevention of harm and suggest ways in which clinicians can discharge this obligation. To illustrate our argument, we consider the clinical application of genetic sequencing testing, which involves scientific and technical information that can compromise the understanding and decisional capacity of most patients. Finally, we consider and rebut objections that this could lead to paternalism. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 22 | 23% |
| United States | 12 | 13% |
| Canada | 11 | 12% |
| France | 4 | 4% |
| Ireland | 4 | 4% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 33 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 68 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 14 | 15% |
| Scientists | 11 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 186 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Researcher | 12 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 64 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Psychology | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 20% |
| Unknown | 65 | 35% |