Health Care Analysis

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 60–84 | Cite as

Shared Decision Making, Paternalism and Patient Choice

Original Article

Abstract

In patient centred care, shared decision making is a central feature and widely referred to as a norm for patient centred medical consultation. However, it is far from clear how to distinguish SDM from standard models and ideals for medical decision making, such as paternalism and patient choice, and e.g., whether paternalism and patient choice can involve a greater degree of the sort of sharing involved in SDM and still retain their essential features. In the article, different versions of SDM are explored, versions compatible with paternalism and patient choice as well as versions that go beyond these traditional decision making models. Whenever SDM is discussed or introduced it is of importance to be clear over which of these different versions are being pursued, since they connect to basic values and ideals of health care in different ways. It is further argued that we have reason to pursue versions of SDM involving, what is called, a high level dynamics in medical decision-making. This leaves four alternative models to choose between depending on how we balance between the values of patient best interest, patient autonomy, and an effective decision in terms of patient compliance or adherence: Shared Rational Deliberative Patient Choice, Shared Rational Deliberative Paternalism, Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision, and Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise. In relation to these models it is argued that we ideally should use the Shared Rational Deliberative Joint Decision model. However, when the patient and professional fail to reach consensus we will have reason to pursue the Professionally Driven Best Interest Compromise model since this will best harmonise between the different values at stake: patient best interest, patient autonomy, patient adherence and a continued care relationship.

Keywords

Paternalism Patient autonomy Patient best interest Patient centred care Patient choice Shared decision-making Patient adherence 

References

  1. 1.
    Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brock, D. W., & Wartman, S. A. (1990). When competent patients make irrational choices. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(22), 1595–1599.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine, 44(5), 681–692.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1999). Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: Revisiting the shared decision-making model. Social Science and Medicine, 49, 651–661.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CIOMS. (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eddy, D. M. (1990). Anatomy of a decision. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emanuel, E. J., & Emanuel, L. L. (1992). Four models of the physician-patient relationship. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(16), 2221–2226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evans, R. G. (1984). Strained mercy: The economics of canadian health care. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faden, R. R., & Beauchamp, T. L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the faces of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and evolution of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haywood, K., Marschall, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Patient participation in the consultation process. A structured review of intervention strategies. Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 12–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Juth, N. (2005). Genetic information. Values and rights. The morality of presymptomatic genetic testing. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kettner, M. (1993). Scientific knowledge, discourse ethics, and consensual formation in the public domain. In R. Winkler & J. Cooms (Eds.), Applied ethics: A reader (pp. 28–46). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiesler, D. J., & Auerbach, S. M. (2006). Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and intepersonal behaviour: Evidence, models and interventions. Patient Education and Counseling, 61, 319–341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lewin, S. A., Skea, Z. C., Entwistle, V., Zwarenstein, M., & Dick, J. (2001). Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4), CD003267.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lutfey, K. E., & Wishner, W. J. (1999). Beyond “Compliance” Is “Adherence”. Improving the prospect of diabetes care. Diabetes Care, 22(4), 635–639.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L. (2006). An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 60, 301–312.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Munthe, C. (1999). Pure selection: The ethics of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and choosing children without abortion. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Provis, C. (2004). Negotiation, persuasion and argument. Argumentation, 18, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rao, J. K., Anderson, L. A., Inui, T. S., & Frankel, R. M. (2007). Communication interventions make a difference in conversations between physicians and patients. Medical Care, 45(4), 340–349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Savulescu, J. (1995). Rational non-interventional paternalism: Why doctors ought to make judgments of what is best for their patients. Journal of Medical Ethics, 21(6), 327–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Savulescu, J., & Momeyer, R. W. (1997). Should informed consent be based on rational beliefs? Journal of Medical Ethics, 123(5), 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and Decision, 28, 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Dam, H. A., van der Horst, F., van den Borne, B., Ryckman, R., & Crebolder, H. (2003). Provider-patient interaction in diabetes care: Effects on patient self-care and outcomes. A systematic review. Patient Education and Counseling, 51, 17–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    VanDeVeer, D. (1992). Paternalistic intervention. The moral bounds on belevolence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wirtz, V., Cribb, A., & Barber, N. (2006). Patient-doctor decision-making about treatment within the consultation—a critical analysis of models. Social Science and Medicine, 62(1), 116–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    World Medical Association. (2004) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. WMA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGothenburg UniversityGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.School of Health SciencesUniversity College of BoråsBoråsSweden

Personalised recommendations