Skip to main content

Dialogic Consensus In Clinical Decision-Making

Abstract

This paper is predicated on the understanding that clinical encounters between clinicians and patients should be seen primarily as inter-relations among persons and, as such, are necessarily moral encounters. It aims to relocate the discussion to be had in challenging medical decision-making situations, including, for example, as the end of life comes into view, onto a more robust moral philosophical footing than is currently commonplace. In our contemporary era, those making moral decisions must be cognizant of the existence of perspectives other than their own, and be attuned to the demands of inter-subjectivity. Applicable to clinical practice, we propose and justify a Habermasian approach as one useful means of achieving what can be described as dialogic consensus. The Habermasian approach builds around, first, his discourse theory of morality as universalizable to all and, second, communicative action as a cooperative search for truth. It is a concrete way to ground the discourse which must be held in complex medical decision-making situations, in its actual reality. Considerations about the theoretical underpinnings of the application of dialogic consensus to clinical practice, and potential difficulties, are explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Aggarwal, A., J. Davies, and R. Sullivan. 2014. “Nudge” in the clinical consultation—An acceptable form of medical paternalism? BMC Medical Ethics 15(1): 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agich, G. 2003. Dependence and autonomy in old age: An ethical framework for long-term care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. 2012. National safety and quality health services standards. Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/NSQHS-Standards-Sept-2012.pdf.

  4. Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society. 2014. ANICS statement on care and decision-making at the end of life for the critically ill, 1.0 ed. Melbourne: Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, publication no. ACN 057 619 986.

  5. Beauchamp, T.L. 2009. Moral foundations. In: Ethics and Epidemiology, 2nd ed., edited by S.S. Coughlin, T.L. Beauchamp, and D.L. Weed, 39–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caws, P. 1991. Committees and consensus. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(4): 375–391.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaudhary, S., M. Avis, and C. Munn-Giddings. 2013. Beyond the therapeutic: A Habermasian view of self-help groups’ place in the public sphere. Social Theory & Health 11(1): 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cronin, C. 2001. Translator’s introduction. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  9. Crowder, G. 2003. Pluralism, relativism and liberalism in Isaiah Berlin. Paper presented at the Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, September 29–October 01, in Hobart, Australia.

  10. Doran, E., J. Fleming, C. Jordens, C. Stewart, J. Letts, and I. Kerridge. 2015. Part of the fabric and mostly right: An ethnography of ethics in clinical practice. Medical Journal of Australia 202(11): 568–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Elwyn, G., D. Frosch, R. Thomson, et al. 2012. Shared decision-making: A model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine 27(10): 1361–1367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Flyvbjerg, B. 2000. Ideal theory, real rationality: Habermas versus Foucault and Nietzsche. Paper presented at the Political Studies Association’s 50th Annual Conference, April 10–13, in London, UK.

  13. Goodstein, J.D. 2000. Moral compromise and personal integrity: Exploring the ethical issues of deciding together in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly 10(4): 805–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Griffioen, S., and R. Van Woudenberg. 1990. We must not forget those who are absent: Interview with Karl-Otto Apel on the universality of ethics. In What right does ethics have?: Public philosophy in a pluralistic culture, edited by S. Griffioen, 11–21. Amsterdam: VU University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Habermas, J. 1972. Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann Educational.

    Google Scholar 

  16. ———. 1987. The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. ———. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. ———. 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ———. 2001a. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. ———. 2001b. On the pragmatics of social interaction: Preliminary studies in the theory of communicative action. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Holm, S., P. Gjersøe, G. Grode, O. Hartling, K.E. Ibsen, and H. Marcussen. 1996. Ethical reasoning in mixed nurse-physician groups. Journal of Medical Ethics 22(3): 168–173.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Jennings, B. 1991. Possibilities of consensus: Towards democratic moral discourse. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16(4): 447–463.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones, I.R. 2001. Health care decision making and the politics of health. In Habermas, Critical theory, and Health, edited by G. Scambler, 68–85. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kerridge, I., M. Lowe, and C. Stewart. 2013. Ethics and law for the health professions. Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laura, R.S., T. Marchant, and S.R. Smith. 2008. The new social disease: From high tech depersonalisation to survival of the soul. New York: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  26. McCarthy, T. 1978. The critical theory of Jurgen Habermas. London: Hutchison.

    Google Scholar 

  27. ———. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Montgomery, K., and J.M. Little. 2001. Ethical thinking and stakeholders. The Medical Journal of Australia 174(8): 405–406.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nagel, T. 1987. Moral conflict and political legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 16(3): 215–240.

    Google Scholar 

  30. New South Wales Ministry of Health. 2014. Using resuscitation plans in end of life decisions. Document no. PD2014_030.

  31. Salzman, T.A., and M.G. Lawler. 2013. Method and caltholic theological ethics in the twenty-first century. Theological Studies 74(4): 903–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Scambler, G. 2001. Introduction: Unfolding themes of an incomplete project. In Habermas, critical theory, and health, edited by G. Scambler, 1–24. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  33. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2007. Philosophy, A school of freedom: Teaching philosophy and learning to philosophize: Status and prospects. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Walker, P., T. Lovat, J. Leitch, and P. Saul. 2014. The moral philosophical challenges posed by fully implantable permanent pacemakers. Ethics and Medicine 30(3): 157–165.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Walseth, L., and E. Schei. 2011. Effecting change through dialogue: Habermas’ theory of communicative action as a tool in medical lifestyle interventions. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14(1): 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. White, S.K. 1991. Political theory and postmodernism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wilkinson, D., R. Truog, and J. Savulescu. 2015. In favour of medical dissensus: Why we should agree to disagree about end-of-life decisions. Bioethics 30(2): 109–118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which helped us to focus our argument.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Walker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Walker, P., Lovat, T. Dialogic Consensus In Clinical Decision-Making. Bioethical Inquiry 13, 571–580 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-016-9743-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Consensus
  • Dialogue
  • Discourse Ethics
  • Habermas
  • Moral Decision-Making