This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jerry A. Menikoff, MD, JD
New York, NY

Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(12):1604.

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

It is gratifying to see the recent increased attention given to issues of medical ethics in ophthalmology, in particular, the two excellent articles in the March 1993 issue of the ARCHIVES on informed consent by Gold¹ and Finkelstein and colleagues.² Unfortunately, the accompanying article by Lee and colleagues³ may seriously confuse many readers.

Both its title ("Is Informed Consent Needed for Fluorescein Angiography?") and large portions of its text (such as the entire first paragraph) seem to seriously suggest that there really is a question about whether informed consent is needed for fluorescein angiography. There is no question. As the article by Finkelstein et al correctly notes, informed consent, meaning a patient's informed agreement to a medical test or procedure, is a basic ethical mandate. It "ought always to be obtained."² The question that Lee and colleagues³ appear to be primarily interested in is how . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?