Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 155–162 | Cite as

Avoiding bias in medical ethical decision-making. Lessons to be learnt from psychology research

  • Heidi Albisser Schleger
  • Nicole R. Oehninger
  • Stella Reiter-Theil
Review Article

Abstract

When ethical decisions have to be taken in critical, complex medical situations, they often involve decisions that set the course for or against life-sustaining treatments. Therefore the decisions have far-reaching consequences for the patients, their relatives, and often for the clinical staff. Although the rich psychology literature provides evidence that reasoning may be affected by undesired influences that may undermine the quality of the decision outcome, not much attention has been given to this phenomenon in health care or ethics consultation. In this paper, we aim to contribute to the sensitization of the problem of systematic reasoning biases by showing how exemplary individual and group biases can affect the quality of decision-making on an individual and group level. We are addressing clinical ethicists as well as clinicians who guide complex decision-making processes of ethical significance. Knowledge regarding exemplary group psychological biases (e.g. conformity bias), and individual biases (e.g. stereotypes), will be taken from the disciplines of social psychology and cognitive decision science and considered in the field of ethical decision-making. Finally we discuss the influence of intuitive versus analytical (systematical) reasoning on the validity of ethical decision-making.

Keywords

Ethical judgment Decision-making Treatment decisions Clinical ethics consultation Quality improvement Bias Reasoning error 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of the project “Between Over-Treatment and Under-Treatment: Ethical Problems of Micro-Allocation”, no. 3200B0-113724/1, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. We are grateful for the helpful comments of Prof. Volker Dittmann, Legal and Forensic Medicine, University of Basel. We also thank Marcel Mertz, MA, for his helpful comments. Piera Jones, MA, and Nicola Stingelin Giles, MBA, MAS, MAE gave invaluable help in translating and editing the manuscript into native English. The paper has benefited much from the discussions in the PhD Colloquium, Dept. Medical and Health Ethics, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Basel.

References

  1. Aberegg, S.K., E.F. Haponik, and P.B. Terry. 2005. Omission bias and decision making in pulmonary and critical care medicine. Chest American College of Chest Physicians 128: 1497–1505.Google Scholar
  2. Agich, G. 2001. The question of method in ethics consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics 1(4): 31–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albisser Schleger, H., and S. Reiter-Theil. 2007. ‘Age’ and ‘Costs’—Factors in treatment decisions at the end-of life? An analysis of informal knowledge structures of doctors and nurses. Ethik in der Medizin 19: 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albisser Schleger, H., H. Pargger, and S. Reiter-Theil. 2008. ‘Futility’—Overtreatment at the end of life? Reasons for missed cessations of therapy in geriatric and critical care. Zeitschrift für Palliativmedizin 9: 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). 1998. Core competences for health care ethics consultation. Reprinted 2003 Glenview, IL, USA. In Ethics consultation. From theory to practice, ed. M.P. Aulisio, R.M. Arnold, and S.J. Youngner, 165–209. Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, C.J. 2003. The psychology of doing nothing—Forms of decision avoidance result from reason and emotion. Psychological Bulletin 129: 9–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asch, S.E. 1956. Studies of independence and conformity—A minority of one against an unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs 70(9): 416.Google Scholar
  8. Asch, D.A. 2001. Economics and decision science. In Methods in medical ethics, ed. J. Sugarman, and D.P. Sulmasy, 227–234. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beck, S., A. van de Loo, and S. Reiter-Theil. 2008. A ‘little bit illegal’? Withholding and withdrawing of mechanical ventilation in the eyes of German intensive care physicians. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11: 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beecher, H.K. 1955. The powerful placebo. The Journal of the American Medicine Association 159: 1602–1606.Google Scholar
  11. Bernal, E.W. 2000. Errors in ethics consultation. In Margin of error: The ethics of mistakes in the practice of medicine, ed. S.B. Rubin, and L. Zoloth, 255–272. Hagerstown, Maryland: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  12. Bierhoff, H. 2006. Sozialpsychologie—Ein Lehrbuch. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  13. Brody, H. 1997. The doctor as therapeutic agent: A placebo research agenda. In The placebo effect—An interdisciplinary exploration, ed. E. Harrington, 77–92. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, J.D., and P.J. Fairey. 1989. Informational and normative routes to conformity—The effect of faction size as a function on norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Croskerry, P. 2005. The theory and practice of clinical decision-making. The Canadian Journal of Anasthesia 52(6/pp): R1–R8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dörner, D. 1997. The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Press.Google Scholar
  17. Fletcher, J., R.J. Boyleand, and E.M. Spencer. 2000. Errors in Healthcare Ethics Consultation. In Margin of error: The ethics of mistakes in the practice of medicine, ed. S.B. Rubin, and L. Zoloth, 343–373. Hagerstown, Maryland: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  18. Foerde, R., R. Pedersen, and V. Akre. 2008. Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: A tool for quality improvement. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11(1): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerard, H.B., R.A. Wilhelmy, and E.S. Conolley. 1968. Conformity and group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8: 79–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gigerenzer, G., P.M. Todd, and The ABC Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gigone, D., and R. Hastie. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 959–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gigone, D., and R. Hastie. 1996. The impact of information on group judgment: A model and computer simulation. In Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups, Vol. 1, ed. E. Witte, and J.H. Davis, 221–251. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. 1995. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hertwig, R., and P.M. Todd. 2003. More is not always better—The benefits of cognitive limits. In Thinking—Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment and decision making, ed. D. Hardman, and L. Macchi, 213–231. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Hume, D. 1978. A treatise of human nature. Clarendon: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hurst, S.A., R. Forde, S. Reiter-Theil, A.M. Slowther, A. Perrier, R. Pegoraro, and M. Danis. 2007. Physicians’ views on resource availability and equity in four European health care systems. BMC Health Services Research 7: 137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Janis, I.L. 1982. Groupthink—Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoe, 2nd ed. Boston: Hougthon Mifflin.Google Scholar
  28. Jungermann, H., H.R. Pfister, and K. Fischer. 2005. Die Psychologie der Entscheidung—Eine Einführung. Heidelberg: Spektrum.Google Scholar
  29. Kelley, H.H. 1955. The two functions of reference groups. In Readings in social psychology, ed. G.E. Swanson, T.E. Newcomb, and E.L. Hartley, 410–414. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  30. Kelly, J.R., and S.J. Karau. 1999. Group decision making—The effects of initial preferences and time pressure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 1342–1354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kohlberg, L., C. Levine, and A. Hewer. 1983. Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics. Basel: Karger.Google Scholar
  32. Larson, J.R.J., C. Christensen, T.M. Franz, and A.S. Abbott. 1998. Diagnosing groups—The pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 93–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, M.J. 1980. The belief in a just world—A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  34. Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to authority–An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  35. Milgram, S. 1976. Obedience to criminal orders—The compulsion to do evil. In Contemporary social psychology—Representative readings, ed. T. Blass, 175–184. Itasca: Peacock.Google Scholar
  36. Molewijk, B., M. Verkerk, H. Milius, and G. Widdershoven. 2008. Implementing moral case deliberation in a psychiatric hospital: Process and outcome. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11(1): 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moore, G.E. 1959. Principia ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nunner-Winkler, G. 1984. Two Moralities? A Critical Discussion of an Ethic of Care and Responsibility versus an Ethic of Rights and Justice. In Morality, moral behavior, and moral development, ed. W.M. Kurtines, and J.L. Gewirtz. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  39. Parks, C.D., and R.A. Cowlin. 1996. Acceptance of uncommon information into group discussion when that information is or is not demonstrable. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 66(3): 307–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pfaefflin, M., K. Kobert, and S. Reiter-Theil. 2009. Evaluating clinical ethics consultation. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 18(4): 406–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Redelmeier, D.A., L.E. Ferris, J.V. Tu, J.E. Hux, and M.J. Schull. 2001. Problems for clinical judgement—Introducing cognitive psychology as one more basic science. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing 164(3): 358–360.Google Scholar
  43. Reitemeier, P.J. 2000. Quality and error in bioethics consultation: A puzzle in pieces. In Margin of error: The ethics of mistakes in the practice of medicine, ed. S.B. Rubin, and L. Zoloth, 231–253. Hagerstown, Maryland: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  44. Reiter-Theil, S. 2001. Ethics consultation in Germany: The present situation. HEC-Forum 13(3): 265–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reiter-Theil, S. 2003. Balancing the Perspectives. The patient’s role in clinical ethics consultation. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reiter-Theil, S. 2009. Dealing with the normative dimension in clinical ethics consultation. Cambridge Quarterly Healthcare Ethics 18(4): 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reiter-Theil, S., M. Mertz, and B. Meyer-Zehnder. 2007. The complex Role of Relatives in end-of-life decision-making: An ethical analysis. HEC-Forum 19(4): 341–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Richter, G. 2007. Greater patient, family and surrogate involvement in clinical ethics consultation: The model of clinical ethics liaison as a measure for preventive ethics. HEC-Forum 19(4): 327–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenberg, L.A. 1961. Group size, prior experience and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 63: 436–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosenthal, R. 1966. Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Entury-Crofts.Google Scholar
  51. Ross, J., S. Ross, and B. McClung. 2006. Ethical decision making and organizational behavior: A case of life and death. HEC Forum 18: 193–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rubin, S.B., and L. Zoloth (eds.). 2000. Margin of error: The ethics of mistakes in the practice of medicine. Hagerstown, Maryland: University Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  53. Saks, M.J. 1977. Jury verdicts—The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  54. Saks, M.J., and M.W. Marti. 1997. A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior 21(5): 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schulz-Hardt, S., F. Brodbeck, A. Mojzisch, R. Kerschreiter, and D. Frey. 2006. Group decision making in hidden profile situations—Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6: 1080–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spranca, M., E. Minsk, and J. Baron. 1991. Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27(1): 76–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stasser, G. 2000. Information distribution, participation and group decision—Explorations with the DISCUSS and SPEAK models. In Computational modelling of behaviour in organizations, ed. D.R. Ilgen, and C.L. Hulin, 135–161. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  58. Stasser, G., and W. Titus. 1985. Pooling of unshared information in group decision making—Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 1467–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sugarman, J., and D.P. Sulmasy (eds.). 2001. Methods in medical ethics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sunstein, C.R. 2005. Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28(4): 531–573.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Thorndike, E.L. 1920. A constant error in psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology 4: 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., B. Sarr, A. Fagerlin, and P.A. Ubel. 2006. A matter of perspective—Choosing for others differs from choosing for yourself in making treatment decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine 21(6): 618–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heidi Albisser Schleger
    • 1
  • Nicole R. Oehninger
    • 1
  • Stella Reiter-Theil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Medical and Health Ethics, Medical FacultyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations