Advanced

Temporising and respect for patient self-determination

Lindberg, Jenny LU ; Johansson, Mats LU and Broström, Linus LU (2019) In Journal of Medical Ethics 45(3). p.161-167
Abstract
The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view. This article asks under what circumstances, if any,... (More)
The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view. This article asks under what circumstances, if any, temporising—waiting to pose a certain treatment question to a patient judged to have decision-making capacity—is compatible with the principle of self-determination. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Journal of Medical Ethics
volume
45
issue
3
article number
104851
pages
161 - 167
publisher
BMJ Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • pmid:30530843
  • scopus:85058444873
ISSN
1473-4257
DOI
10.1136/medethics-2018-104851
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
f373bd3e-51dd-452c-8666-3ca8bb8b0d6c
date added to LUP
2018-12-11 07:37:28
date last changed
2020-01-13 01:16:32
@article{f373bd3e-51dd-452c-8666-3ca8bb8b0d6c,
  abstract     = {The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view. This article asks under what circumstances, if any, temporising—waiting to pose a certain treatment question to a patient judged to have decision-making capacity—is compatible with the principle of self-determination.},
  author       = {Lindberg, Jenny and Johansson, Mats and Broström, Linus},
  issn         = {1473-4257},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {03},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {161--167},
  publisher    = {BMJ Publishing Group},
  series       = {Journal of Medical Ethics},
  title        = {Temporising and respect for patient self-determination},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-104851},
  doi          = {10.1136/medethics-2018-104851},
  volume       = {45},
  year         = {2019},
}