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:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/f373bd3e-51dd-452c-8666-3ca8bb8b0d6c
- author
- Lindberg, Jenny
LU
; Johansson, Mats
LU
and Broström, Linus
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2019-03-01
- 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
- 2022-04-25 19:29:41
@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}},
}