How Successful Are We at Protecting Preferences? Consent,Informed Consent,Advance Directives,and Substituted Judgment

Slater v. Baker and Stapleton, 95 Eng. Rep. 860; 2 Wils. KB 359 (1767).

Salgo v. Leland Stanford Junior University Board of Trustees, 154 Cal. App. 2d 560, 317 P. 2d 170 (1957).

Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (1972).

Reibl v. Hughes, 2 SCR 885 (1980).

Sidaway v. Board of the Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital and Others, 1 AC 871 (1985).

Rogers v. Whitaker, 67 ALJR 47 (1992).

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. DHEW Pub. 78-0012. Washington, DC: The Commission; 1978.

45 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 46.102.d (2004).

Powers M. Communicating risk in the United Kingdom. Br Med J. 2003;327:735–776.

Pruchno RA , Lemay EP Jr , Feild L , Levinsky NG . Predictors of patient treatment preferences and spouse substituted judgments: the case of dialysis continuation. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26:112–121.

Elliott C. Caring about risks: are severely depressed patients competent to consent to research? Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1997; 54:113–116.

Office of Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services . Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information: final rules. Fed Regist. 2002;67:53182–53272.

Mazur DJ . Influence of the law on risk and informed consent. Br Med J. 2003;327:731–774.