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?

Paul P. Lee, MD
Los Angeles, Calif

Andrew P. Schachat, MD
Baltimore, Md

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.

In reply

We would like to thank Menikoff for his letter. We agree that informed consent is a basic principle, and in the ideal world it would be obtained for all medical tests, procedures, and services. While we are not sure of Menikoff's experiences, we can only note that we have been asked on numerous occasions during the past few years whether informed consent is needed for fluorescein angiography. As we noted in our article,¹ and as Menikoff points out, there are indeed two separate issues: first, the extent of the discussion with the patient and second, the documentation of such a discussion. From a practical standpoint, we are baffled as to how Menikoff could draw the conclusion that our article suggests that informed consent is "... just a question of deciding when to get a patient's signature on a form."

Even more important, we would all be remiss not . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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