The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Medical Decision-Making
Abstract
In law, with rare exception such as legislative action, change is evolutionary and methodical. Unlike biomedical science where a breakthrough can quickly lead to dramatic changes in medical practice, legal precedent is more adherent and must evolve either through the legislative process or on a court by court basis in case law. Nevertheless, compelling evidence will pave the road to change within the law. Health care research conducted over the last three decades has produced a body of empirical evidence that suggests an overhaul of our current legal standards of informed consent is overdue. This article uses health services research to examine the fundamental assumptions of our current informed consent laws and propose legal reform. Much has been written on how to bring the law to bear on medical practice in order to improve patient rights and protect physicians, but far less has been done to bring the practice of medicine to inform our legal standards. Prior legal scholarship on informed consent has made arguments regarding reform from both ethical and legal perspectives; however, only a small few have incorporated clinical and health services research as well as ethical and legal principles to analyze informed consent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States
McGlynn, E. A., Asch, S. M., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., DeCristofaro, A., & Kerr, E. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa022615 · Cited by 5,079
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
Assessing the Effects of Physician-Patient Interactions on the Outcomes of Chronic Disease
Kaplan, S. H., Greenfield, S., & Ware, J. E. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010 · Cited by 2,043
Wennberg, J., & Gittelsohn, A. (1973) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.182.4117.1102 · Cited by 1,876
Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics
O'Neill, O. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511606250 · Cited by 1,202
Not all patients want to participate in decision making: A national study of public preferences
Levinson, W., Kao, A., Kuby, A., & Thisted, R. A. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.04101.x · Cited by 1,103
The Silent World of Doctor and Patient
Katz, J. (2002) · Johns Hopkins University Press eBooks · doi:10.56021/9780801857805 · Cited by 992
Autonomy and trust in bioethics
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4540 · Cited by 900
Cited by
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405
Saini, V., Garcia-Armesto, S., Klemperer, D., Paris, V., Elshaug, A. G., Brownlee, S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Fisher, E. S. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)30947-3 · Cited by 258
Shared decision making in mental health: prospects for personalized medicine
Drake, R. E., Cimpean, D., & Torrey, W. C. (2009) · Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience · doi:10.31887/dcns.2009.11.4/redrake · Cited by 173
Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., Weijden, T. V. D., Edwards, A., & May, C. (2008) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-57 · Cited by 159
Co-designing a theory-informed intervention to increase shared decision-making in maternity care
Waddell, A., Spassova, G., Sampson, L., Jungbluth, L., Dam, J., & Bragge, P. (2023) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-023-00959-x · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- King, J. S., & Moulton, B. W.
- Venue
- American Journal of Law & Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006-12
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 429-501
- ISSN
- 0098-8588 (ISSN-L)
- 2375-835X
- OpenAlex
- W1591897304
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 5.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Medical Decision-Making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/009885880603200401
- The paper
- King, J. S., & Moulton, B. W. (2006). Rethinking Informed Consent: The Case for Shared Medical Decision-Making. American Journal of Law & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/009885880603200401
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
