Reconciling the principle of patient autonomy with the practice of informed consent: decision-making about prognostication in uveal melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Influential views on how to protect patient autonomy in clinical care have been greatly shaped by rational and deliberative models of decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to understand how the general principle of respecting autonomy can be reconciled with the local reality of obtaining consent in a clinical situation that precludes extended deliberation.
METHOD: We interviewed 22 patients with intraocular melanoma who had been offered cytogenetic tumour typing to indicate whether the tumour was likely to shorten life considerably. They were interviewed before and/or up to 36 months after receiving cytogenetic results. Patients described their decision-making about the test and how they anticipated and used the results. Their accounts were analysed qualitatively, using inconsistencies at a descriptive level to guide interpretative analysis.
RESULTS: Patients did not see a decision to be made. For those who accepted testing, their choice reflected trust of what the clinicians offered them. Patients anticipated that a good prognosis would be reassuring, but this response was not evident. Although they anticipated that a poor prognosis would enable end-of-life planning, adverse results were interpreted hopefully. In general, the meaning of the test for patients was not separable from ongoing care.
CONCLUSION: Models of decision-making and associated consent procedures that emphasize patients' active consideration of isolated decision-making opportunities are invalid for clinical situations such as this. Hence, responsibility for ensuring that a procedure protects patients' interests rests with practitioners who offer it and cannot be delegated to patients.