Navigating the ambiguity of invasiveness: is it warranted? A response to De Marco et al

Within the physician–patient relationship, the particular characteristics, hazards, advantages and therapeutic significance of a procedure and its associated pathology are thoroughly discussed during the medical decision-making process. Presently, no model has been proffered which can effectively ex...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of medical ethics 2024-04, Vol.50 (4), p.236-237
Main Author: Tito, Nicholas Shane
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Commentary
Decision Making
Education
Electroconvulsive therapy
Ethics
Ethics- Medical
Heart surgery
Informed Consent
Intervention
Patients
Terminology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Within the physician–patient relationship, the particular characteristics, hazards, advantages and therapeutic significance of a procedure and its associated pathology are thoroughly discussed during the medical decision-making process. Presently, no model has been proffered which can effectively explain the invasiveness of electroconvulsive therapy and remain universally valid for different medical interventions.4 5 Applying De Marco et al framework to electroconvulsive therapy leaves us in the exact position we were before–subjective interpretation of threshold invasiveness, to some subjective threshold, and the need for further clarification of what the term means within the conversation of informed consent.1 Instead, by maintaining the current binary classification of electroconvulsive therapy as non-invasive, we preserve the longstanding understanding of invasiveness. Though I suggest reworking their model and retaining the invasive binary and its qualifiers already in use as an integral part.
ISSN:0306-6800
1473-4257
DOI:10.1136/jme-2023-109693