This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Ophthalmology, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

I agree that the informed-consent procedure risks degenerating into a tool to avoid litigation. I am therefore very pleased about your thought that a thorough discussion with patients about surgical risks is a matter of fairness. I completely agree that we as physicians have to tell the patients that we cannot promise a particular outcome and that adverse events can happen and may lead to an unpleasant postoperative result. As physicians, we have to clarify that. However, since considering the real-life circumstances is a matter of constitutional legality, I believe that the courts should rethink the credibility of patient claims about informed-consent information by considering the real-life circumstances outlined in prior studies and our present one.

The decision for surgery usually is dominated by its indication, and in most cases, it would not be useful for the patient to refrain from accepting a necessary treatment. Cognitive dissonance helps . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Wolfgang Radner, MD

RELATED ARTICLE

Appropriate Timing for Informed-Consent Discussions
Marvin F. Kraushar
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(5):707.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT