Informed Consent and Dental Treatment This paper

This paper will discuss the issue of informed consent in the area of dentistry. The first part of the paper will discuss the standards used to define informed consent. The second part of the paper will examine what information is considered "material" and therefore necessary for disclosure. The third part of the paper will look at the unique problems presented by child patients. The fourth part will discuss the issue of implied consent. The last part will discuss some of the specific information which must be disclosed.

Informed consent in dental treatment is identical to that in other types of medical treatment. The general rule in all cases involving medical treatment is that the prior consent of the patient is required in order for a physician to provide such treatment. The patient must be advised of the nature and the risks of the proposed treatment in order for the consent to be valid. Traditionally, there has been confusion as to whether the doctrine of informed consent was rooted in assault and battery or negligence. Most courts now reserve the assault-and-battery theory for those cases where the patient did not consent to the procedure performed. Negligence has become the basis for cases where the consent was obtained without the physician making the proper disclosure to the patient (the patient was given too little information to be able to give an informed consent).

It is generally accepted that whenever a pa

. . .
if the patient would have submitted to the treatment even if full disclosure had been made. Situations involving children present unique problems. The general rule is that while a child is not competent to give informed consent on his or her own, such consent can be given by the parent. Many commentators assert that by seeking dental treatment for a child, a parent implicitly consents to the use of ordinary, acceptable techniques and procedures. Quite obviously, this holds more for those jurisdictions adhering to either of the objective standards. Those jurisdictions adhering to the subjective patient standard would be less likely to accept this argument. For instance, the choice of standard could well affect a dentist's liability for using the hand-over-mouth technique in controlling a crying child undergoing treatment. This technique requires the dentist to put his or her hand over the mouth of the crying child while firmly informing the child that resistance is futile. A more extreme form of this technique involves blocking the child's nasal air passages as well. Advocates of this technique perceptively argue that obtaining a parent's affirmative consent to this technique prior to treatment is probably futile. Th
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Dental Treatment, Ind App, Cobbs Grant, Natanson Kline, Riedisser Nelson, Wash App, DC Cir, Mo App, informed consent, York Hospital, Ct App, implicit consent, patient standard, standard question answered, question answered, risks benefits, consent treatment, standard question, consent procedure, consent form, reh'g denied, la ct app, dentist obtain patient's, question answered referring, p2d 1 cal,
Approximate Word count = 1935
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Informed Consent and Dental Treatment This paper