Regarding informed consent, should a physician discuss both the benefits and the potential consequences of not receiving therapy?

Regarding informed consent, should a physician discuss both the benefits and the potential consequences of not receiving therapy?

• A. Yes, both should be discussed
• B. No, only the benefits
• C. No, only risks of therapy
• D. It is optional

Answer: (A)

Informed consent hinges on giving patients information they need to make a voluntary, well-considered decision. That means clearly outlining what a therapy can achieve (the benefits) and also what could happen if they choose not to proceed (the consequences of not receiving therapy). By sharing both sides, the physician respects the patient’s autonomy and helps them weigh the trade-offs in light of their values and goals. If only benefits are discussed, the patient may underestimate risks or miss important outcomes of declining treatment. If only risks or only one side are discussed, the decision isn’t truly informed. The discussion should also cover alternatives and the option of no treatment so the patient can choose what aligns best with their circumstances.

Informed consent hinges on giving patients information they need to make a voluntary, well-considered decision. That means clearly outlining what a therapy can achieve (the benefits) and also what could happen if they choose not to proceed (the consequences of not receiving therapy). By sharing both sides, the physician respects the patient’s autonomy and helps them weigh the trade-offs in light of their values and goals. If only benefits are discussed, the patient may underestimate risks or miss important outcomes of declining treatment. If only risks or only one side are discussed, the decision isn’t truly informed. The discussion should also cover alternatives and the option of no treatment so the patient can choose what aligns best with their circumstances.