Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging.

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate ionising medical imaging has been escalating in the last decades. This trend leads to potential damage to health and has been associated to bioethical and legal issues of patient autonomy.

METHODS

While the doctrine underlines the importance of using informed consent to improve patient autonomy and physician-patient communication, some researchers have argued that it often falls short of this aim. There are basically two different informed consent practices. The first - the so-called "event-based model" - regards informed consent as a passive signature of a standard unreadable template, performed only once in each medical pathway. The second - the so-called "process-based model" - integrates information into the continuing dialogue between physician and patient, vital for diagnosis and treatment.

RESULTS

Current medical behaviour often embraces the event-based model, which is considered ineffective and contributes to inappropriateness. We sought, in this review, to analyse from juridical and communication standpoints whether process-based informed consent can deal with scientific uncertainties in radiological decision-making. The informed consent is still a distinctive process in defence of both patients' and physicians' health and dignity in rule-of-law states and consequently in curtailing the abuse of ionising medical radiation.

MAIN MESSAGES

• Inappropriate ionising medical imaging is widespread and increasing worldwide. • This trend leads to noteworthy damage to health and is linked to the issue of patient autonomy. • Some authors have argued that informed consent often falls short of improving patient autonomy. • Process-based informed consent can deal with scientific uncertainties to contrast inappropriateness. • Informed consent is still a distinctive process in defence of both patients and physicians.