N 2 (35) 2025. P. 55–62

BIOETHICAL CONCEPT OF INFORMED CONSENT IN THE CONTEXT OF TOTALOLOGICAL METHODOLOGY

S. V. Pustovit

Shupyk National University of Health Care of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine

DOI 10.32782/2519-4151-2025-2-9

The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the bioethical concept of informed consent is becoming one of the key scientific, ethical and legal concepts in applied ethics in the second half of the 20th century. The relationship between a doctor and a patient is of fundamental importance, because it determines the success of treatment and the satisfaction of the consumer of medical services.

The purpose of the article is to reveal the essence of the concept of informed consent in medicine and to show that it is a tool for the erosion and further transformation of the rigid disposition of “doctor-patient”, inherent in the modern stage of development of science and the paternalistic type of relationship between a doctor and a patient.

The theoretical and methodological foundations of the work are general scientific and philosophical research methods, in particular the totalological methodology.

Results of the study. It is shown that from the point of view of totalological methodology, informed consent defines the state of the “doctor-patient” discret as an internally and externally unstable, parsian process aimed at overcoming the conservative paternalistic attitude and, at the same time, at expanding the boundaries of the autonomous model and humanization of medicine. For the patient, the main thing is not submission to the doctor or confrontation with him, but the desire to combine, harmonize (syzygy) all aspects of his life (including those related to health) into a general picture of being, as a condition for self-determination, the formation of one’s own identity and safe everyday life.

Key words: informed consent, autonomy, patient rights, syzygy, totalology.

REFERENCES

  1. Кizima VV. New education for a new person. Philosophy of Education. 2005; 2: 36–61. (In Ukrainian). Available from: https:// philosopheducation.com/index.php/philed/article/view/106/88.
  2. Kizima VV. Ontic-ontological duality of being and its consequences for man. Totallogy-XXI. Post-non-classical investigations. 2016; 33: 54–118. (In Ukrainian). Available from: https://cgo.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Totallogy_33.pdf.
  3. Kizima VV. Syzygy as the essence of being. Totallogy-XXI. Post-non-classical investigations. 2016; 33: 7–53. (In Ukrainian). Available from: https://cgo.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ Totallogy_33.pdf.
  4. Kulish M. Digital privacy in conditions of mass surveillance: legal and ethical aspects. Civilistic platform. 2025; №1 (4): 201–24. (In Ukrainian). Available from: https://clp.org.ua/ tsyfrova-pryvatnist-v-umovakh-masovoho-sposterezhennia-pravovi-ta-etychni-aspekty/.
  5. Tishchenko PD. How is communication possible without generalization (an interdisciplinary approach to bioethics). Philosophy of biomedical research. Ethos of science at the beginning of the third millennium; B.G. Yudin. Moscow: Institute of Humanities, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2004. С. 48–70. (In Russian). Available from: http://ukros.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Sbornik_10.pdf.
  6. Tkhostov ASh. Psychology of corporeality. Moscow: Smysl, 2002. 250 c. (In Russian). Available from: https://studfile.net/ preview/6749396/.
  7. Agozzino E, Borrelli S, Cancellieri M, Carfora FM, Di Lorenzo T, Attena F. Does written informed consent adequately inform surgical patients? A cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Ethics. 2019; 20 (1). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/30616673/.
  8. Beauchamp TL., Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. 546 р.
  9. Goldschmitt M, Gleim P, Mandelartz S, Kellmeyer P, Rigotti T. Digitalizing informed consent in healthcare: a scoping review. Goldschmitt et al. BMC Health Services Research. 2025; 25: 893. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12964-7.
  10. Grunhut J. Artificial Intelligence: The Elephant in the Tumor Board Room. Academic Medicine, 2023; 98 (5): 542–542. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36512830/.
  11. Raza F, Herring J, Neuberger J. Quiroga I, Engelmann C, Ryder E, Berg T. Strong or Weak Consent in Medical Law? Identifying the Values Protected in Transplantation Medicine in Europe. European Journal of Health Law. Online Publication, 2025; (32): 28–307. Available from: https://brill.com/view/journals/ejhl/32/3/article-p281_2.xml.
  12. Rose SL, Shapiro D. An ethically supported framework for determining patient notification and informed consent practices when using artificial intelligence in health care. CHEST, 2024; 166 (3): 572–578. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.04.014.
  13. Shah Р, Thornton І, Kopitnik NL, Hipskind JE. Informed Consent. NIH – National Library of Medicine. 2024 (24 November). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/.
  14. Svenaeus F. The hermeneutics of medicine and the phenomenology of health. Steps Towards a Philosophy of Medical Practice. Boston, London: Кluwer Academic Publishers, 2000. 201 c. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9458-5.
  15. Veatch RM. A theory of Medical ethics. New York: Basic books, 1981. P. 218.
View article PDF