NY Times: Dying in the E.R., and on TV without his family's consent
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/nyregion/dying-in-the-er-and-on-tv-without-his-familys-consent.html-snip-
Anita Chanko could not sleep. At 4 a.m., on an August night in 2012, she settled onto the couch in her Yorkville living room with her dog, Daisy, and her parrot, Elliott, and flipped on the DVR. On came the prior night’s episode of “NY Med,” the popular real-life medical series set at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, starring Dr. Mehmet Oz. Mrs. Chanko, 75, was a fan of the show and others like it.
“It starts off, there’s a woman with stomach cancer and her family, and then there’s somebody with a problem with their baby, I think it was a heart,” she remembered. “And then I see the doctor that treated my husband.”
-snip-
= new reply since forum marked as read
No, I don't know - but I seriously doubt that it was asked for/explained in good faith, since the man was probably not thinking clearly and the family probably wasn't thinking clearly.
Bottom line, consent that is not informed isn't really consent. It's one thing to hand people a stack of paper with buried language when they appear for a planned procedure or scheduled admission - and another entirely when someone is brought into the ER in critical condition. The hospital apparently isn't liable, legally, since the family's suit was found without merit - but they have a very, very poor grasp of ethics.
In an ER, the standard for informed consent should be higher, not lower. If it is a teaching hospital, then it should be right up front that students will observe procedures and surgeries. If it isn't a teaching hospital, then it should be a consent to treat. Not a consent to treat with a series of riders that have nothing to do with the function of the facility. People in extremis aren't known for their ability to reason soundly.
Many years ago, I had an unusual surgery, planned. I was at a teaching hospital. I was told VERY clearly that my operation would probably be a "full house" because of its nature ("please sign here"
. I was told I would have multiple residents attending my follow-up care in hospital, because it would be good training ("please sign here" . Finally, I was told that they would take photographs to accompany the anticipated journal article discussing the procedure, but only the surgical site, not whole body ("please sign here" .
I signed - because I was informed and had no issue with what they were asking. Had it been an emergency, I would have accepted the full house of students, since it was a teaching hospital - probably wouldn't have cared how many residents I had in attendance afterward . . . but would have been mighty provoked if they had taken photos for publication under those circumstances without my permission, and even more provoked if they had tacked a rider on the general "yes, please save me" consent forms.
Treating an ER visit like a scheduled visit is not appropriate when it comes to consent. Too many variables.
