Literature DB >> 20511352

Medical decision-making and communication of risks: an ethical perspective.

Christof Breitsameter1.   

Abstract

The medical decision-making process is currently in flux. Decisions are no longer made entirely at the physician's discretion: patients are becoming more and more involved in the process. There is a great deal of discussion about the ideal of 'informed consent', that is that diagnostic and therapeutic decisions should be made based on an interaction between physician and patient. This means that patients are informed about the advantages and disadvantages of a treatment as well as alternatives to the treatment; then, based on this information they can decide whether or not they want to undergo the treatment. However, recent studies show that the realisation of the ideal of 'shared decision-making' faces a number of difficulties related to the fact that patients are not provided with complete and accurate information. Using the example of breast cancer screening, this article examines the question of whether, in light of these difficulties, the ideal of informed decision-making is only an illusion or whether concrete steps can be taken towards the realisation of this ideal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20511352     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2009.033282

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  11 in total

1.  Difficult choices for young patients with cancer: the supportive role of decisional counseling.

Authors:  Leonora Chiavari; Sara Gandini; Irene Feroce; Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga; William Russell-Edu; Bernardo Bonanni; Fedro Alessandro Peccatori
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  How can we best respect patient autonomy in breast cancer treatment decisions?

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Reshma Jagsi; Kathryn A Martinez; Allison W Kurian
Journal:  Breast Cancer Manag       Date:  2015

3.  Person centred care and shared decision making: implications for ethics, public health and research.

Authors:  Christian Munthe; Lars Sandman; Daniela Cutas
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2012-09

4.  The dialogue as decision support; lived experiences of extended collaboration when an ambulance is called.

Authors:  Elin-Sofie Forsgärde; Anders Svensson; Mattias Rööst; Bengt Fridlund; Carina Elmqvist
Journal:  Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being       Date:  2021-12

5.  Women's perceptions of their involvement in treatment decision making for early stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Mary Ann O'Brien; Cathy Charles; Timothy J Whelan; Peter M Ellis; Amiram Gafni; Peter Lovrics
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Individual breast cancer risk assessment in underserved populations: integrating empirical bioethics and health disparities research.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson; Kent Hoskins
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-11

7.  Can consultation skills training change doctors' behaviour to increase involvement of patients in making decisions about standard treatment and clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  P Butow; R Brown; J Aldridge; I Juraskova; P Zoller; F Boyle; M Wilson; J Bernhard
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  Barriers to shared decision making in mental health care: qualitative study of the Joint Crisis Plan for psychosis.

Authors:  Simone Farrelly; Helen Lester; Diana Rose; Max Birchwood; Max Marshall; Waquas Waheed; R Claire Henderson; George Szmukler; Graham Thornicroft
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  African-American patients with cancer Talking About Clinical Trials (TACT) with oncologists during consultations: evaluating the efficacy of tailored health messages in a randomised controlled trial-the TACT study protocol.

Authors:  R F Brown; R Davis; M Wilson Genderson; S Grant; D Cadet; M Lessard; J Alpert; J Ward; G Ginder
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  Mapping the risk perception and communication gap between different professions of healthcare providers in cancer care: a cross-sectional protocol.

Authors:  Trine Stub; Frauke Musial; Sara A Quandt; Thomas A Arcury; Anita Salamonsen; Agnete Kristoffersen; Gro Berntsen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.