CASE STUDY

one paragraph intext citation and reference follow up add contribute to the following post 

CASE STUDY #2

This statement is true because the woman consented to the procedure, the risk and the benefits. According to Hanson & Pitt, (2017), prior to obtaining consent for the proposed surgery, the surgeon must provide the following information about the surgery, “… the expected benefits, material risks and adverse effects, alternate treatments and the consequences of not having the surgery. Material risks include risks common to all surgery and risks specific for the proposed surgery, even if they are rare.” The situation in this case is known as the extension doctrine. The extension doctrine deals with the extenuating circumstance that when a patient originally consented for a specific procedure, further issues that are encountered, are best resolved in that current time. If the doctor during the time that the informed consent was being given, also explained any additional care, such as a biopsy, then the patient was fully aware and consented.  However, the extension doctrine does not hold true in cases where the patient has previously refused care. In this case, if the patient had previously refused care, then it is best for the surgeon to perform the colectomy only and have the patient consent again to any further care (University of Virgnia, n.d.).

References:

Hanson, M., & Pitt, D. (2017). Informed consent for surgery: Risk discussion and documentation.

Medical Informed Consent. (n.d.). Retrieved January 24, 2021, from https://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/courses/rad/consent/2/case_study_2.html