Medical paternalism

Last updated

Medical paternalism is a set of attitudes and practices in medicine in which a physician determines that a patient's wishes or choices should not be honored. These practices were current through the early to mid 20th century, and were characterised by a paternalistic attitude, surrogate decision-making and a lack of respect for patient autonomy. [1] It is almost exclusively undertaken with the intention of benefiting the patient, although this is not always the case. In the past, paternalism was considered an absolute medical necessity, as there was little to no public understanding of medical procedures and practices. However, in recent years, paternalism has become limited and blind faith in doctors' decisions has come to be frowned upon. [2]

Contents

By the end of the 20th century and into the 21st, paternalistic medicine was increasingly seen as inappropriate in the West with guidance from professional bodies such as the General Medical Council indicating that it is ethically unsupportable. [3]

History

Historical view

Traditionally, patients' roles were similar to that of a helpless, passive infant, while doctors held a dominant, parental position. [4] In Medieval Europe, doctors held highly esteemed, almost magical positions, while patients were seen as helpless. In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was believed that only a doctor could properly understand symptoms and draw useful conclusions. During this period, the prevailing consensus was that disease was nothing more than symptoms. [4] This meant that the individual history of the patient did not matter in providing care, so the patient him or herself was irrelevant in the medical encounter. Thus it was deemed necessary that physicians make decisions for patients; information given to patients was often limited to what the physician perceived as not causing harm. [5]

Historical examples

In 1847, the American Medical Association's Code of Ethics stated:

The obedience of a patient to the prescriptions of his physician should be prompt and implicit. He should never permit his own crude opinions as to their fitness, to influence his attention to them. A failure in one particular may render an otherwise judicious treatment dangerous, and even fatal.

— American Medical Association, Article II, "Obligation of patients to their physicians", Code of Medical Ethics [6]

This view of paternalism was only encouraged by the rise of hospitals in the later 18th century. Because patients in hospitals were often sick and disabled, the view of them as passive recipients of medical care only became more prevalent. [4]

An 1888 physician's manual "encouraged physicians to withhold information to prevent patients from becoming medically self-sufficient." [5] Physicians were encouraged to obfuscate test methods, medication names, and treatments, as well as withhold the abusive and addictive potential of medicines used at the time. [7]

In the 1950s, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association covered whether or not a cancer patient (and/or their family) should be informed of the condition, in an attempt to limit potential distress. The patient or family may be instead have been told of an infection or bowel blockage requiring surgery. If the patient was informed and experienced severe distress – "if they return to a pseudoinfantile state" – "they should be handled in many respects as children", potentially requiring a prefrontal lobotomy. [8] As late as 1961, the vast majority of American doctors (90%) did not inform patients about cancer diagnoses. [5]

Movement away from paternalism

The movement away from paternalism can be traced back to the relationship between early psychologists and their patients. In particular, Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud urged that importance be placed on communication with and understanding of the patient. [4] This sharply contrasted the view of patients as passive, and placed them at the center of the medical encounter. These practices also treated patients as unique, instead of simply being a collection of symptoms to be fixed by a paternalistic doctor.

In 1956, Szasz and Hollender [9] introduced three models of paternalism to the medical community, thereby legitimising the view that doctors did not necessarily have to dominate patients. The models are as follows:

In the latter 20th century, in part due to a focus on patients' rights, greater emphasis on communication in healthcare, and improved medical treatments, the partnership model and patient autonomy have become more common, particularly in Western countries. [10]

Strong vs. weak paternalism

Strong and weak paternalism (sometimes referred to as limited and extended paternalism) are two philosophies regarding when it is appropriate for a doctor to ignore a patient's wishes. The fundamental difference lies in the patient's capacity to make well-informed decisions for themselves. [11] Weak (or limited) paternalism refers to a situation in which the physician will only disobey the patient's requests if the patient cannot demonstrate that their choices are voluntary and well-informed. As such, even if the doctor disagrees with the patient's desire, he or she will not intervene as long as the patient is of sound mind. Strong (or extended) paternalism involves a doctor superseding a patient's requests in cases where the doctor has determined a better course of action, even when the patient's requests are made voluntarily. These cases typically arise when the physician has determined that a patient's decision is unreasonable because of the risks involved, or potential costs to the patient's well-being. [12]

Legality

Due to the subjective nature of when and to what extent paternalism is necessary, physicians who engage in paternalism may find themselves in a complicated legal situation. Throughout history there have been many cases in which a patient is reported to have made a well-informed choice (while of sound mind) to opt for a medically improper treatment, or one that is very costly to their well-being. If the doctor does not take a paternalistic stance, and instead goes through with the patient's wishes, the question arises as to whether malpractice occurred. [13] There exists an expectation of doctors to provide as much information as is appropriate to their patients, as well as an expectation that they do not keep anything relevant secret. This creates a difficult legal situation in which a decision has to be made about what the correct amount of information is, and how best to present it. For example, a patient may read everything available to them and ultimately decide on undergoing a procedure with a 95% survival rate. However, that same patient may not choose the same procedure if it is presented as carrying a 5% risk of dying. As such, in cases in which things go awry it is the courts' responsibility to determine whether the physician is at fault, and whether he or she should have ignored the patient's requests. [14]

Relationship with euthanasia

In many cases, particularly countries in which voluntary euthanasia is illegal, physicians must exercise medical paternalism by not respecting patients' wishes to die. There are contrasting views on whether this constitutes weak or strong paternalism. One argument is that weak paternalism allows the physician to stay completely hands-off. If the patient is in a sound state of mind and the doctor can reasonably guess what they desire, so there is no need for further action. They do not need to keep the patient alive, nor do they need to allow the patient to die. In this sense, one could argue that weak medical paternalism has no contradictions with allowing a patient to undergo voluntary euthanasia.

The relationship between strong medical paternalism and euthanasia is slightly more complicated. There are questions of a philosophical nature that must be addressed. For example, a strong paternalist would have to determine whether it is always objectively bad for a human to die, even if that human could prove that it was their desire to do so. In these cases, a physician may defer to morality or religion in order to make a decision. They would perhaps present the argument that even if a person wished to die, it would be an irrational desire and they should not indulge it. However, in the absence of these factors, it is possible for strong paternalism to be compatible with voluntary euthanasia. This would require the patient to make it clear that he or she would not be losing anything of value to them by dying, i.e. fundamentally disconnecting life from goodness. For example, if a patient learns that he or she would be in constant pain for the rest of his or her life, it is not irrational to honor their wishes to die. In these cases, some argue, even a strong paternalism does not justify prolonging the patient's life, because the physician's actions would not truly be for the patient's own good. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and suffering.

The Nuremberg Code is a set of ethical research principles for human experimentation created by the court in U.S. v Brandt, one of the Subsequent Nuremberg trials that were held after the Second World War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informed consent</span> Ethical precondition for obtaining voluntary assumption of risk

Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics, medical law, media studies, and other fields, that a person must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about accepting risk, such as their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research, to disclose a person's medical information, or to participate in high risk sporting and recreational activities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assisted suicide</span> Suicide undertaken with aid from another person

Assisted suicide describes the process by which a person, with the help of others, takes drugs to end their life. It has been referred to as physician-assisted suicide (PAS), assisted suicide, assisted dying or medical aid in dying.

In developmental psychology and moral, political, and bioethical philosophy, autonomy is the capacity to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Autonomous organizations or institutions are independent or self-governing. Autonomy can also be defined from a human resources perspective, where it denotes a level of discretion granted to an employee in his or her work. In such cases, autonomy is known to generally increase job satisfaction. Self-actualized individuals are thought to operate autonomously of external expectations. In a medical context, respect for a patient's personal autonomy is considered one of many fundamental ethical principles in medicine.

Medical ethics is an applied branch of ethics which analyzes the practice of clinical medicine and related scientific research. Medical ethics is based on a set of values that professionals can refer to in the case of any confusion or conflict. These values include the respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. Such tenets may allow doctors, care providers, and families to create a treatment plan and work towards the same common goal. These four values are not ranked in order of importance or relevance and they all encompass values pertaining to medical ethics. However, a conflict may arise leading to the need for hierarchy in an ethical system, such that some moral elements overrule others with the purpose of applying the best moral judgement to a difficult medical situation. Medical ethics is particularly relevant in decisions regarding involuntary treatment and involuntary commitment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Life support</span> In medicine

Life support comprises the treatments and techniques performed in an emergency in order to support life after the failure of one or more vital organs. Healthcare providers and emergency medical technicians are generally certified to perform basic and advanced life support procedures; however, basic life support is sometimes provided at the scene of an emergency by family members or bystanders before emergency services arrive. In the case of cardiac injuries, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initiated by bystanders or family members 25% of the time. Basic life support techniques, such as performing CPR on a victim of cardiac arrest, can double or even triple that patient's chance of survival. Other types of basic life support include relief from choking, staunching of bleeding by direct compression and elevation above the heart, first aid, and the use of an automated external defibrillator.

The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that human beings are entitled to end their lives or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often bestowed with the understanding that a person with a terminal illness, or in incurable pain has access to assisted suicide. The question of who, if anyone, may be empowered to make this decision is often the subject of debate.

Futile medical care is the continued provision of medical care or treatment to a patient when there is no reasonable hope of a cure or benefit.

Voluntary euthanasia is the purposeful ending of another person's life at their request, in order to relieve them of suffering. Voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) have been the focus of intense debate in the 21st century, surrounding the idea of a right to die. Some forms of voluntary euthanasia are legal in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Spain.

The Groningen Protocol is a medical protocol created in September 2004 by Eduard Verhagen, the medical director of the department of pediatrics at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) in Groningen, the Netherlands. It contains directives with criteria under which physicians can perform "active ending of life on infants" without fear of legal prosecution.

Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.

The doctor–patient relationship is a central part of health care and the practice of medicine. A doctor–patient relationship is formed when a doctor attends to a patient's medical needs and is usually through consent. This relationship is built on trust, respect, communication, and a common understanding of both the doctor and patients' sides. The trust aspect of this relationship goes is mutual: the doctor trusts the patient to reveal any information that may be relevant to the case, and in turn, the patient trusts the doctor to respect their privacy and not disclose this information to outside parties.

Involuntary euthanasia is illegal in all 50 states of the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions in the US: Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington. The status of assisted suicide is disputed in Montana, though currently authorized per the Montana Supreme Court's ruling in Baxter v. Montana that "nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes [indicates] that physician aid in dying is against public policy."

Non-voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia conducted when the explicit consent of the individual concerned is unavailable, such as when the person is in a persistent vegetative state, or in the case of young children. It contrasts with involuntary euthanasia, when euthanasia is performed against the will of the patient.

Child euthanasia is a form of euthanasia that is applied to children who are gravely ill or have significant birth defects. In 2005, the Netherlands became the first country since the end of Nazi Germany to decriminalize euthanasia for infants with hopeless prognosis and intractable pain. Nine years later, Belgium amended its 2002 Euthanasia Act to extend the rights of euthanasia to minors. Like adult euthanasia, there is world-wide public controversy and ethical debate over the moral, philosophical and religious issues of child euthanasia.

Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in the United Kingdom and could be prosecuted as murder or manslaughter.

Involuntary euthanasia, typically regarded as a type of murder, occurs when euthanasia is performed on a person who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked.

Critics of euthanasia sometimes claim that legalizing any form of the practice will lead to a slippery slope effect, resulting eventually in non-voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia. The slippery slope argument has been present in the euthanasia debate since at least the 1930s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical sociology</span> Branch of sociology

Medical sociology is the sociological analysis of health, Illness, differential access to medical resources, the social organization of medicine, Health Care Delivery, the production of medical knowledge, selection of methods, the study of actions and interactions of healthcare professionals, and the social or cultural effects of medical practice. The field commonly interacts with the sociology of knowledge, science and technology studies, and social epistemology. Medical sociologists are also interested in the qualitative experiences of patients, doctors, and medical education; often working at the boundaries of public health, social work, demography and gerontology to explore phenomena at the intersection of the social and clinical sciences. Health disparities commonly relate to typical categories such as class, race, ethnicity, immigration, gender, sexuality, and age. Objective sociological research findings quickly become a normative and political issue.

References

  1. ↑ Brennan, Troyen (1991). Just Doctoring: Medical Ethics in the Liberal State. University of California Press. pp. 51–53.
  2. ↑ MPS. "The end of paternalism". www.medicalprotection.org. Retrieved 2017-04-15.
  3. ↑ "Consent guidance: Legal Annex - Common Law". General medical Council.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Kaba, R.; Sooriakumaran, P. (February 2007). "The evolution of the doctor-patient relationship". International Journal of Surgery . 5 (1): 57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2006.01.005 . PMID   17386916.
  5. 1 2 3 Sisk, Bryan; Frankel, Richard; Kodish, Eric; Harry Isaacson, J. (September 2016). "The Truth about Truth-Telling in American Medicine: A Brief History". The Permanente Journal. 20 (3): 15–219. doi:10.7812/TPP/15-219. PMC   4991917 . PMID   27352417.
  6. ↑ De, Monya (2004-02-01). "Towards Defining Paternalism in Medicine". AMA Journal of Ethics . 6 (2). doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2004.6.2.fred1-0402 . PMID   23260353.
  7. ↑ Cathell, Daniel Webster (1889). Book on the physician himself and things that concern his reputation and success (9th ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis. pp. 176–179. hdl: 2027/coo1.ark:/13960/t5t72zg2m .
  8. ↑ Kline, Nathan S. (25 August 1951). "The Psychological Management of Cancer Cases". Journal of the American Medical Association. 146 (17): 1547. doi:10.1001/jama.1951.03670170001001. PMID   14860991.
  9. ↑ Szasz, T. S.; Hollender, M. H. (1956). "The Basic Models of the Doctor-Patient Relationship" (PDF). Archives of Internal Medicine. 97: 585–592.
  10. ↑ Sokol, D. K. (December 2006). "How the doctor's nose has shortened over time; a historical overview of the truth-telling debate in the doctor-patient relationship". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . 99 (12): 632–636. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.12.632. PMC   1676322 . PMID   17139067.
  11. ↑ Childress, James F. (1982). Who Should Decide?: Paternalism in Health Care . New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-503127-0.[ page needed ]
  12. ↑ Robison, Wade L.; Pritchard, Michael S. (1979). Medical Responsibility: Paternalism, Informed Consent, and Euthanasia . Clifton, NJ: The HUMANA Press. ISBN   978-0-89603-007-7.[ page needed ]
  13. ↑ Richards, Edward (2009-04-19). "Public Health Law Map - Beta 5.7". The LSU Medical and Public Health Law Site. Retrieved 2017-04-11.
  14. ↑ Rosenbaum, Lisa (13 August 2015). "The Paternalism Preference — Choosing Unshared Decision Making". New England Journal of Medicine. 373 (7): 589–592. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1508418 . PMID   26267618.
  15. ↑ Häyry, Heta (2018). "Voluntary Euthanasia and Medical Paternalism". Individual Liberty and Medical Control. pp. 28–39. doi:10.4324/9780429453298. ISBN   978-0-429-45329-8.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.