RT Journal
A1 WOODS WD
T1 INformed consent and the need for delegalization
JF American Journal of Diseases of Children
JO American Journal of Diseases of Children
YR 1989
FD August 1
VO 143
IS 8
SP 885
OP 886
DO 10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150200029012
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1989.02150200029012
AB Dr Jeffrey R. Botkin,1 in his article "Informed Consent for Lumbar Puncture," which appears in this issue of AJDC, provides physicians with an adequate legal definition of the concept of "informed consent." While I might, on technical grounds, have some objections to the way he describes the exceptions to the requirement for informed consent (see below), I think his articulation of the general principles is useful. Unfortunately, informed consent is not a concept with unvarying meaning. It is used in many See also p 899. different contexts and has many different meanings, depending on the court or commentator who is attempting to use the phrase. The two words, however, have generally accepted contextual meaning. Thus, "informed" means knowing, understanding, or aware. It does not mean the mere telling of fact, particularly when that information is not understood by the recipient. Thus, if I give the information in a language