Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Austoker's editorial (1), "Gaining informed consent for
screening" focussed upon disclosure and comprehension of
information. A further important, but neglected, element of
informed consent identified by Beauchamp and Childress (2),
briefly alluded to by Austoker (1), concerns voluntariness.
The NHSBSP aims to, "recognise and respect every woman's
right to make HER OWN informed decisions about breast
screening" (3). Squaring this with the social influence
implicit in the practice of issuing an appointment time and,
in some units, a GPs letter of support is problematic. Once
again, the tension between informed consent and the need for
maximum recruitment appears. Whether these practices require
amendment or elimination in the quest for "truly informed
consent" (1) is a matter requiring further debate.
1. Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. Br
Med J 1999;319:722-723.
2. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical
ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
3. Austoker J, Fagge D, Gray S, Patnick J. Messages about
breast screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP publications,
Competing interests:
No competing interests
10 January 2000
Alison Dines
Honorary research fellow
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Southampton
Voluntariness in breast cancer screening
Austoker's editorial (1), "Gaining informed consent for
screening" focussed upon disclosure and comprehension of
information. A further important, but neglected, element of
informed consent identified by Beauchamp and Childress (2),
briefly alluded to by Austoker (1), concerns voluntariness.
The NHSBSP aims to, "recognise and respect every woman's
right to make HER OWN informed decisions about breast
screening" (3). Squaring this with the social influence
implicit in the practice of issuing an appointment time and,
in some units, a GPs letter of support is problematic. Once
again, the tension between informed consent and the need for
maximum recruitment appears. Whether these practices require
amendment or elimination in the quest for "truly informed
consent" (1) is a matter requiring further debate.
1. Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. Br
Med J 1999;319:722-723.
2. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical
ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
3. Austoker J, Fagge D, Gray S, Patnick J. Messages about
breast screening. Sheffield: NHSBSP publications,
Competing interests: No competing interests