首页> 外文期刊>American journal of psychiatry >Drs. Geppert and Abbott Reply
【24h】

Drs. Geppert and Abbott Reply

机译:博士Geppert和Abbott回复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

We appreciate Dr. Balhara's thought-provoking questions regarding our case conference. In our article, we attempted to illustrate the three domains of an informed consent evaluation: information including the risks and benefits of a proposed intervention, decisional capacity, and capacity for voluntarism. Information and decisional capacity have traditionally formed the cornerstone of most informed consent evaluations. In the case presented in our article, we described a patient who had impaired capacity for voluntarism and subsequently was not able to provide consent for the particular intervention "in accordance with [his] authentic sense of what [was] best in light of [his] situation, values, and prior history" (p. 412).
机译:我们感谢Balhara博士关于案例会议的发人深省的问题。在我们的文章中,我们试图说明知情同意书评估的三个领域:信息,包括拟议干预措施的风险和收益,决策能力和自愿能力。传统上,信息和决策能力已成为大多数知情同意书评估的基石。在本文中介绍的案例中,我们描述了一名自愿能力受损并随后无法针对特定干预措施表示同意的患者,“根据[他]对[他]的最佳理解” ]情况,价值和以前的历史记录”(第412页)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号