Advertisement

Ethics in Clinical Practice

  • Margaret Drickamer
Chapter

Abstract

Normative ethics addresses the criteria or standards by which we judge whether an action is considered to be right or wrong. Medical ethics is built on a utilitarian ethical structure; it bases what we ought to do on competing principles that are applied in the context of the clinical setting and not on overarching deontological moral imperatives. The guiding principles of American medical ethics are those of respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice (Table 14.1). Autonomy is defined as the right to self-determination, the right to make one’s own choices. The principle of nonmaleficence, often equated with the phrase primum non nocere, first do no harm, is better described as the obligation not to knowingly do harm by either an action or the omission of an action. Beneficence is the act of doing the most possible good; to take the action which will result in the most beneficial outcome for the patient. Justice, in the context of health care, refers to equality of medical treatment and the access to care. For any given clinical situation, the application of each of these principles may give different answers to what is right or wrong [1].

Keywords

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Decisional Capacity Artificial Food Surrogate Decision Maker Unbearable Suffering 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, p 15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackhall LJ, Murphy ST, Frank G, Michel V, Azen S (1995) Ethnicity and attitudes toward patient autonomy. JAMA 274:820–825PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fitts WT, Ravdin IS (1953) What Philadelphia physicians tell patients with cancer. JAMA 153:901–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oken D (1961) What to tell cancer patients: a study of medical attitudes. JAMA 175:1120–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Novack DH, Olumer R, Smith RL, Ochitill H, Morrow GR, Bennett JM (1979) Changes in physicians’ attitudes toward telling the cancer patient. JAMA 241:897–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drickamer MA, Lachs LS (1992) Should patients with Alzheimer’s disease be told their diagnosis? N Engl J Med 336:947–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Drickamer MA, Lachs LS (1993) Telling the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 328:442Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenber NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W (1999) Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA 282:2313–2320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein RM, Alper BS, Quill TE (2004) Communicating evidence for participatory decision making. JAMA 291:2359–2366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ford S, Scofield T, Hope T (2003) What are the ingredients for a successful evidence-based patient choice consultation? A qualitative study. Soc Sci Med 56:589–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meisel A, Kuczewski M (1996) Legal and ethical myths about informed consent. Arch Intern Med 156:2521–2526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fried TR, McGraw S, Agostini J, Tinetti ME (2008) Views of older persons with multiple morbidities on competing outcomes and clinical decision-making. J Am Geriatr Soc 56(10):1839–1944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lo B, Steinbrook R (1991) Beyond the Cruzan case: the U.S. Supreme Court and medical practice. Ann Intern Med 114:895–901PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvert GM, Hornung RW, Sweeney MH, Fingerhut MA, Halperin WE (1992) Hepatic and gastrointestinal effects in an occupational cohort exposed to 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin. JAMA 267(16):2209–2214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneiderman LJ, Spragg RG (1988) Ethical decisions in discontinuing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med 318:984–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sullivan RJ (1993) Accepting death without artificial nutrition or hydration. J Gen Intern Med 8:220–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Applebaum PS, Grisso T (1988) Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 319:1635–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Appelbaum PS (2007) Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 357:1834–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brock DW, Wartman SA (1990) When competent patients make irrational choices. N Engl J Med 322:1595–1599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jefferson AL, Lambe S, Moser DJ, Byerly LK, Ozonoff A, Karlawish JH (2008) Decisional capacity for research participation individuals with mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1236–1243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stocking CB, Hougham GW, Danner DD, Patterson MB, Whitehouse PJ, Sachs GA (2008) Variable judgements of decisional capacity in cognitively impaired research subjects. J Am Geriatr Soc 56:1893–1897PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Naik AD, Teal CR, Pavlik VN, Dyer CB, McCullougy LB (2008) Conceptual challenges and practical approaches to screen capacity for self-care and protection in vulnerable older adults. Geriatr Soc 56:S266–S270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lai J, Karlawish J (2007) Assessing the capacity to make everyday decisions: a guide for clinicians and an agenda for future research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 15(2):101–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drickamer MA (2009) Legal and ethical issues. In: Pacala JT, Sullivan GM (eds) Geriatric review syllabus: a core curriculum in geriatric medicine, 7th edn. American Geriatrics Society, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hastings Center (1987) Guidelines on the termination of life-sustaining treatment and the care of the dying. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, INGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sulmasy DP, Terry PB, Weisman CS, Miller EJ, Stallings RY, Vettese MA, Haller KB (1998) The accuracy of substituted judgments in patients with terminal diagnoses. Ann Intern Med 128:621–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schneiderman LJ, Pearlman RA, Kaplan RM et al (1992) Relationship of general advance directive instructions to specific life-sustaining treatment preferences in patients with serious illness. Arch Intern Med 152:2114–2122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    AGS Ethics Committee (1996) Making treatment decisions for incapacitated older adults without advance directives. J Am Geriatr Soc 44:986–987Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berger JT, DeRenzo EG, Schwartz J (2008) Surrogate decision making: reconciling ethical theory and clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 149:48–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright AA, Zhang B, Ray A, Mack JW, Trice E, Balboni T et al (2008) Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. JAMA 300:1665–1673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smyer M, Schaie KW, Kapp MB (eds) (1996) Older adults’ decision making and the law. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walker RM (1991) DNR in the OR: resuscitation as an operative risk. JAMA 266:2407–2412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gostin LO (2001) National health information privacy regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. JAMA 285:3015–3021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Quill TE, Brody H (1996) Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med 125:763–769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schneiderman LJ (1994) The futility debate: effective versus beneficial intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc 42:883–886PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR (1996) Medical futility: response to critiques. Ann Intern Med 125:669–674PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    White DB, Curtis R, Wolf LE, Predergast TJ et al (2007) Life support for patients without a surrogate decision maker: who decides? Ann Intern Med 147:34–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Knaus WA, Harrell FE, Lynn J et al (1995) The SUPPORT prognostic model. Objective estimates of survival for seriously ill hospitalized adults. Ann Intern Med 122:191–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Knaus WA, Wagner DP, Draper EA et al (1991) The APACHE III prognostic system: risk predication of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 100:1619–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lynn J, Teno JM, Harrell FE Jr (1995) Accurate prognostication of death: opportunities and challenges for clinicians. West J Med 163:250–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Teno JM, Harrell FE, Knaus W, Phillips RS, Wu AW et al (2000) Prediction of survival for older hospitalized patients: The HELP survival model. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:S16–S24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Christakis NA, Lamont EB (2000) Extent and determinants of error in doctors’ prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ 320:469–473PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wu AW, Yasui Y, Alzola C, Galanos AN et al (2000) Predicting functional status outcomes in hospitalized patients aged 80 years and older. J Am Geriatr Soc 48:S6–S15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Quill TE, Meier DE, Blovk S, Billings A (1998) The debate over physician assisted suicide: empirical data and convergent views. Ann Intern Med 128:552PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine (Geriatrics)Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations