Editing Informed consent (section)

===Medical history===
[[File:First informed consent document Turkey 1539.png|thumb|right|In this Ottoman Empire document from 1539 a father promises to not sue a surgeon in case of death following the removal of his son's urinary stones.<ref name="Selek 2010"/>]]
Historians cite a series of medical guidelines to trace the history of informed consent in medical practice.

The [[Hippocratic Oath]], a Greek text dating to 500 B.C.E., was the first set of Western writings giving guidelines for the conduct of medical professionals. Consent by patients as well as several other, now considered fundamental issues, is not mentioned. The [[Hippocratic Corpus]] advises that physicians conceal most information from patients to give the patients the best care.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|61}}  The rationale is a [[Beneficence (ethics)|beneficence]] model for care—the doctor knows better than the patient, and therefore should direct the patient's care, because the patient is not likely to have better ideas than the doctor.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|61}}

[[Henri de Mondeville]], a French surgeon who in the 14th century, wrote about medical practice. He traced his ideas to the Hippocratic Oath.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|63}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Burns|first=Chester R.|title=Legacies in ethics and medicine|year=1977|publisher=Science History Publications|location=New York|isbn=9780882021669}} In this book see Mary Catherine Welborn's excerpts from her 1966 ''The long tradition: A study in fourteenth-century medical deontology''</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Katz|first=Jay|title=The silent world of doctor and patient|year=2002|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|location=Baltimore|isbn=978-0801857805|pages=7–9|edition=Johns Hopkins Paperbacks|author2=Alexander Morgan Capron}}</ref> Among his recommendations were that doctors "promise a cure to every patient" in hopes that the good prognosis would inspire a good outcome to treatment.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|63}} Mondeville never mentioned getting consent, but did emphasize the need for the patient to have confidence in the doctor.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|63}} He also advised that when deciding therapeutically unimportant details the doctor should meet the patients' requests "so far as they do not interfere with treatment".<ref>{{cite book|last=Burns|first=Chester R.|title=Legacies in ethics and medicine|year=1977|publisher=Science History Publications|location=New York|isbn=9780882021669}} In this book see De Mondeville's "On the morals and ethics of medicine" from ''Ethics in Medicine''</ref>

In Ottoman Empire records there exists an agreement from 1539 in which negotiates details of a surgery, including fee and a commitment not to sue in case of death.<ref name="Selek 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Selek |first1=Salih |title=A written consent five centuries ago |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=1 October 2010 |volume=36 |issue=10 |pages=639 |doi=10.1136/jme.2010.037713|pmid=20817814 |s2cid=30806638 }}</ref> This is the oldest identified written document in which a patient acknowledges risk of medical treatment and writes to express their willingness to proceed.<ref name="Selek 2010"/>

[[Benjamin Rush]] was an 18th-century United States physician who was influenced by the [[Age of Enlightenment]] cultural movement.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|65}} Because of this, he advised that doctors ought to share as much information as possible with patients. He recommended that doctors educate the public and respect a patient's informed decision to accept therapy.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|65}} There is no evidence that he supported seeking a consent from patients.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|65}} In a lecture titled "On the duties of patients to their physicians", he stated that patients should be strictly obedient to the physician's orders; this was representative of much of his writings.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|65}} John Gregory, Rush's teacher, wrote similar views that a doctor could best practice beneficence by making decisions for the patients without their consent.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|66}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Gregory|first=John|title=Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Physician|url=https://archive.org/details/b30515427|year=1772}}</ref>

[[Thomas Percival]] was a British physician who published a book called ''Medical Ethics'' in 1803.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|68}} Percival was a student of the works of Gregory and various earlier Hippocratic physicians.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|68}} Like all previous works, Percival's ''Medical Ethics'' makes no mention of soliciting for the consent of patients or respecting their decisions.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|68}} Percival said that patients have a right to truth, but when the physician could provide better treatment by lying or withholding information, he advised that the physician do as he thought best.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|68}}

When the [[American Medical Association]] was founded they in 1847 produced a work called the first edition of the ''American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics''.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|69}} Many sections of this book are verbatim copies of passages from Percival's ''Medical Ethics''.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|69}} A new concept in this book was the idea that physicians should fully disclose all patient details truthfully when talking to other physicians, but the text does not also apply this idea to disclosing information to patients.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|70}} Through this text, Percival's ideas became pervasive guidelines throughout the United States as other texts were derived from them.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|70}}

[[Worthington Hooker]] was an American physician who in 1849 published ''Physician and Patient''.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|70}} This medical ethics book was radical demonstrating understanding of the AMA's guidelines and Percival's philosophy and soundly rejecting all directives that a doctor should lie to patients.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|70}} In Hooker's view, benevolent deception is not fair to the patient, and he lectured widely on this topic.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|70}} Hooker's ideas were not broadly influential.<ref name="historytheory"/>{{rp|70}}

The principle of informed consent was not legally binding until first recorded in the ''Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr University Board of Trustees'' case of 1957. Salgo underwent a procedure to evaluate his aortic arteriosclerosis; a contrast (which is a substance used in medical imaging to differentiate internal structures) was injected into his aorta to find blockages, but his legs ended up permanently paralyzed; however, Salgo had not been informed of this risk. This case was one of the first to draw attention to the need for patients to understand the risks and benefits of their procedures, since at that time a lack of informed consent was not considered negligence.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bazzano |first=Lydia A. |last2=Durant |first2=Jaquail |last3=Brantley |first3=Paula Rhode |date=2021 |title=A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7993430/ |journal=Ochsner Journal |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=81–85 |doi=10.31486/toj.19.0105 |issn=1524-5012 |pmc=7993430 |pmid=33828429}}</ref>

The US ''[[Canterbury v. Spence]]'' case in 1972 officially established the principle of informed consent in US law. Canterbury underwent a laminectomy to relieve back pain but was not informed of the risk of paralysis. While left by himself, he fell off his bed and was later paralyzed from the waist down; he required further surgeries but was never completely relieved of paralysis in his bowels and bladder.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Canterbury v. Spence |url=https://studicata.com/case-briefs/case/canterbury-v-spence/ |access-date=2025-04-24 |website=Studicata |language=en-US}}</ref> Earlier legal cases had created the underpinnings for informed consent, but his judgment gave a detailed and thought through discourse on the matter.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/294067618 |title=Health Law and Bioethics : Cases in Context |date=2009 |publisher=Aspen Publishers/Wolters Kluwer |editor=Sandra H. Johnson |isbn=978-0-7355-7767-1 |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 1: Canterbury vs Spence |oclc=294067618}}</ref> The judgment cites cases going back to 1914 as precedent for informed consent.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Faden |first=Ruth R. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/228168485 |title=A history and theory of informed consent |date=1986 |publisher=Oxford University Press |others=Tom L. Beauchamp, Nancy M. P. King |isbn=1-4237-6352-1 |location=New York |oclc=228168485}}</ref>{{Rp|page=56}}