@C7RKY I think it was you who was reading my criticisms of ReSPECT? If it was you, and if you've looked - who do you think is right, ReSPECT or me?
For different reasons, you and I have a shared desire to ensure that a consent form is designed in such a way as to provoke the right behaviours in clinicians:
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/600735704101031936 …
So what's @DrMarkTaubert's position on this issue then?
-
-
Actually I'm more interested in records of conversations and decisions (especially best-interests decisions) during end-of-life (especially if patient is at home) being signed-off from 'all sides' - not so much 'normal consent forms'. What are our 'different reasons'?
-
I think your tweet demonstrates our different reasons pretty well actually. But we both want the patient's wishes accurately recorded and respected. Just in different scenarios.
-
I'm not at all clear about your reasons - basically, 'I'm very strong on patient self-determination and on properly-performed best-interests decision making if the patient isn't capacitous'.
-
And yours is an honourable pursuit. My interest is in ensuring that those who ARE capacitous, have their consent decisions respected. In particular, I am trying to tighten the consent form design to help prevent fraudulent amendment of its contents after the fact.
-
I do 'capacitous' - but in the context of having Advance Decisons (which are refusals of treatment) respected by clinicians, especially by 999. Your issue seems to partly involve consent forms being looked at retrospectively (for example, after a death during an operation)?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.