Informed Consent Form

4

We have had some discussion on the blog concerning an “informed consent form” and whether chiropractors need to have one. I think not. But inasmuch as most state boards are trying to place chiropractic into the medical model, they may require one now or in the near future. I have created one that I think should standup under state board and judicial scrutiny. Please feel free to use it, adapt it, comment on it if you would like to. Keep in mind that it is designed specifically for a non therapeutic objective straight chiropractic practice……………………………………..

Informed Consent Form
I have been explained chiropractic care and I understand that the chiropractor is not attempting to treat or alleviate a diagnosed or undiagnosed medical condition but only correct vertebral subluxation so that the inborn recuperative abilities of my body will be improved. Further, I understand that there are other factors that affect recuperative ability, perhaps even more than the correction of vertebral subluxation.
One of those factors may be the inherited or acquired limitations of my individual body, a factor that cannot be known. I undertake chiropractic care with that knowledge.
Signed,

John Doe__________________________________________-

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 4 comments

  1. Don 08/27/2014, 3:49 am:

    Joe,
    Thank you for posting this informed consent. I was surprised to find the use of the term “inborn recuperative abilities”. I say surprised only because I haven’t seen that term used often on the blog. Maybe I wasn’t reading carefully enough!
    Aside from that, I am slightly confused. I thought with the last thread, we (You, Tom, Steve and I) concluded that the EIF, adjustic thrust, specified contact velocity driven vector application (sorry if I got that wrong Steve!) does have the potential for harm?
    Maybe I misinterpreted. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    In my opinion, I choose to consider that the application of force by the chiropractor if a fallible. Although, one could argue that the probability is low or high, that may be beside the point. If full disclosure of material risk was or is being requested by policy makers/regulators and the public, the challenge may be, how can the OSC/OC community make this informed consent more robust?

    I don’t have a clue how to do this in a way that is acceptable in OSC language.

    I suppose I am working with the understanding that risk is always present. I could be alone here. I also assume it is the fiduciary responsibility of the service provider to somehow explain that the risk, although small, is present.
    Does this conflict with the understanding that ii is on the job to mitigate the possibility of injury and a chiropractors intent is never to provide more forces than necessary to facilitate a correction by the ii of the body?
    Thanks again for the post Joe!

    • Joe Strauss 08/28/2014, 2:16 pm:

      Don The application of any medical procedure (as far as the medical profession is concerned can have two outcomes, good or bad.
      1. if good it can have two results:
      1. Positive –the patient looks feels or is better. The medical doctor gets the credit.
      2. Negative- the patient looks, feels or is worse (even dead). That may be the result of
      A. “Bad luck” which is covered by Informed Consent form. “The operation was a success but the patient died.”
      B. Malpractice. If the jury finds for the plaintiff it is covered by malpractice insurance. And the Informed Consent form is of no value. If it finds for the defendant, it is “bad luck” for the plaintiff (and darn good luck for the defendant M.D.).

      The application of a chiropractic procedure (the introduction of an (E)UF) can have two outcomes:
      1. An adjustment-resulting in improved function. However the practice member may get worse or die in spite of, or coincidental to the adjustment. In which case an Informed Consent will probably not be helpful.However if the PM has been properly educated, and filled out a Terms of Acceptance form, it is not necessary.
      2. Malpractice-a demonstrable injury, the result of too much or an improperly applied UF which may or may not be accompanied by a coincidental adjustment. In which case an informed consent form will probably be of no help.

      Returning to the original discussion, an informed consent form is medical in nature, of no value to OSC practice and only necessary if the state or province requires one. If they do it should be philosophically congruent. That was the purpose of the sample created.

  2. Don 08/27/2014, 3:51 am:

    force by the chiropractor if a fallible
    SHOULD BE….
    force by the chiropractor is fallible.

    • Steve 08/27/2014, 3:07 pm:

      Yes Don the EIF (external invading force), EUF (educated universal force), CAT (chiropractic adjustic thrust), or VSSCPDC (vector sensitive-speed conscious-predetermined depth concussion), has a propensity for good or evil. There can be too little, just enough or too much force for innate intelligence to adapt. Just like the slip in the tub can be harmful or helpful. The CAT however has a higher ratio of generating a positive response, the slip in the tub, a higher ratio of negative.
      Joe’s ICF above does three things. 1. separates chiropractic from medicine. 2. puts some onus upon the pm. 3. addresses individuality of structure. Sounds pretty complete. Mission, responsibility, LOM, all in one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *