Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 739–742 | Cite as

The Placebo Phenomenon: Implications for the Ethics of Shared Decision-Making

Original Research

Abstract

Recent research into the placebo effect has implications for the ethics of shared decision-making (SDM). The older biomedical model views SDM as affecting which therapy is chosen, but not the nature or likelihood of any health outcomes produced by the therapy. Research indicates, however, that both the content and manner in which information is shared with the patient, and the patient’s experience of being involved in the decision, can directly alter therapeutic outcomes via placebo responses. An ethical tension is thereby created between SDM aimed strictly and solely at conveying accurate information, and “outcome engineering” in which SDM is adapted toward therapeutic goals. Several practical strategies mitigate this tension and promote respect for autonomous decision-making while still utilizing the therapeutic potential of SDM.

References

  1. 1.
    Peabody FW. The care of the patient. J Am Med Assn. 1927;88:877–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harrington A. The cure within: a history of mind-body medicine. New York: Norton; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196:129–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedetti F. Placebo effects: understanding the mechanisms in health and disease. New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hahn RA. The nocebo phenomenon: scope and foundations. In: Harrington A, ed. The placebo effect: an interdisciplinary exploration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1997:56–76.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guess HA, Kleinman A, Kusek JW, Engel LW. The science of the placebo: toward an interdisciplinary research agenda. London: BMJ Books; 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Colloca L, Miller FG. Role of expectations in health. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2011;24:149–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tilburt JC, Emanuel EJ, Kaptchuk TJ, et al. Prescribing ‘placebo treatments’: results of national survey of US internists and rheumatologists. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1938.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kermen R, Hickner J, Brody H, Hasham I. Family physicians believe the placebo effect is therapeutic but often use real drugs as placebos. Fam Med. 2010;42:636–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Title III, Subtitle F. Sec. 3506. Program to facilitate shared decisionmaking. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/Title_III/Subtitle_F#SEC._936._PROGRAM_TO_FACILITATE_SHARED_DECISIONMAKING. (accessed December 19, 2011).
  11. 11.
    Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60:301–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moumjid N, Gafni A, Brémond A, Carrère MO. Shared decision making in the medical encounter: are we all talking about the same thing? Med Decis Making. 2007;27:539–546.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weinstein JN, Clay K, Morgan TS. Informed patient choice: patient-centered valuing of surgical risks and benefits. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:726–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moulton B, King JS. Aligning ethics with medical decision-making: the quest for informed patient choice. J Law Med Ethics. 2010;38:85–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, et al. Toward the tipping point: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:716–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making health care decisions. Part 1: Report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1982:31.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katz J. The silent world of doctor and patient. New York: Free Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kalauokalani D, Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, et al. Lessons from a trial of acupuncture and massage for low back pain: patient expectations and treatment effects. Spine. 2001;26:1418–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brody H, Miller FG. Lessons from recent research about the placebo effect—from art to science. JAMA. 2011;306:2612–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE. Expanding patient involvement in care: effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985;102:520–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leopold N, Cooper J, Clancy C. Sustained partnership in primary care. J Fam Pract. 1996;42:129–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Blasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E, et al. Influence of context effects on health: a systematic review. Lancet. 2001;357:757–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The role of expectancies in the placebo effect and their use in the delivery of health care: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(3):1–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152:1423–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Street RL, Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:295–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Colloca L, Lopiano L, Lanotte M, Benedetti F. Overt versus covert treatment for pain, anxiety and Parkinson’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2004;3:679–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaptchuk TJ, Kelley JM, Conboy LA, et al. Components of the placebo effect: randomized controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. BMJ. 2008;336:999–1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Miller FG, Colloca L. The placebo phenomenon and medical ethics: rethinking the relationship between informed consent and risk-benefit assessment. Theor Med Bioeth. 2011; doi:10.1007/s11017-011-9179-8
  30. 30.
    Green JA. Minimizing malpractice risks by role clarification. The confusing transition from tort to contract. Ann Intern Med. 1988;109:234–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emanuel EJ. Emanuel LL Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267:2221–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brody H. Transparency: informed consent in primary care. Hastings Cent Rep. 1989;19(5):5–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kurz-Milcke E, Gigerenzer G, Martignon L. Transparency in risk communication: graphical and analog tools. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2008;1128:18–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaptchuk TJ, Friedlander E, Kelley JM. Placebo effect without deception: a randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(12):e15591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med. 2011;73:598–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’Connor AM, Pennie RA, Dales RE. Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: the case of influenza immunization. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:1271–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ferguson E, Gallagher L. Message framing with respect to decisions about vaccination: the roles of frame valence, frame method and perceived risk. Br J Psychol. 2007;98:667–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Brody
    • 1
  • Luana Colloca
    • 2
  • Franklin G. Miller
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for the Medical Humanities and Department of Family MedicineUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.National Center for Complementary and Alternative MedicineNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Department of BioethicsClinical Center, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations