Literature DB >> 25784707

Physicians' personal values in determining medical decision-making capacity: a survey study.

Helena Hermann1, Manuel Trachsel1, Nikola Biller-Andorno1.   

Abstract

Decision-making capacity (DMC) evaluations are complex clinical judgements with important ethical implications for patients' self-determination. They are achieved not only on descriptive grounds but are inherently normative and, therefore, dependent on the values held by those involved in the DMC evaluation. To date, the issue of whether and how physicians' personal values relate to DMC evaluation has never been empirically investigated. The present survey study aimed to investigate this question by exploring the relationship between physicians' value profiles and the use of risk-relative standards in capacity evaluations. The findings indicate that physicians' personal values are of some significance in this regard. Those physicians with relatively high scores on the value types of achievement, power-resource, face and conformity to interpersonal standards were more likely to apply risk-relative criteria in a range of situations, using more stringent assessment standards when interventions were riskier. By contrast, those physicians who strongly emphasise hedonism, conformity to rules and universalism concern were more likely to apply equal standards regardless of the consequences of a decision. Furthermore, it has been shown that around a quarter of all respondents do not appreciate that their values impact on their DMC evaluations, highlighting a need to better sensitise physicians in this regard. The implications of these findings are discussed, especially in terms of the moral status of the potential and almost unavoidable influence of physicians' values. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Autonomy; Capacity; Ethics; Informed Consent; Paternalism

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25784707     DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102263

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


  9 in total

1.  Enhancing Medical Decision-Making Evaluations: Introduction of Normative Data for the Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument.

Authors:  Adam Gerstenecker; Lindsay Niccolai; Daniel Marson; Kristen L Triebel
Journal:  Assessment       Date:  2015-08-17

2.  Empirical and philosophical analysis of physicians' judgments of medical indications.

Authors:  Joar Björk; Niels Lynöe; Niklas Juth
Journal:  Clin Ethics       Date:  2016-07-14

3.  Exploring clinicians' perspectives on the 'Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury Care Bundle' national quality improvement programme: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Posy Bidwell; Ranee Thakar; Ipek Gurol-Urganci; James M Harris; Louise Silverton; Alexandra Hellyer; Robert Freeman; Edward Morris; Vivienne Novis; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-09       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Decision-making capacity evaluations: the role of neuropsychological assessment from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Authors:  Sarah Wood; Klaus Bally; Christine Cabane; Patrick Fassbind; Ralf J Jox; Thomas Leyhe; Andreas Monsch; Manuel Trachsel
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 3.921

5.  How to reveal disguised paternalism: version 2.0.

Authors:  Niels Lynøe; Ingemar Engström; Niklas Juth
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Difficult Capacity Cases-The Experience of Liaison Psychiatrists. An Interview Study Across Three Jurisdictions.

Authors:  Nuala B Kane; Alex Ruck Keene; Gareth S Owen; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 5.435

7.  Heed or disregard a cancer patient's critical blogging? An experimental study of two different framing strategies.

Authors:  Niels Lynøe; Sara NattochDag; Magnus Lindskog; Niklas Juth
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Is healthcare providers' value-neutrality depending on how controversial a medical intervention is? Analysis of 10 more or less controversial interventions.

Authors:  Niels Lynöe; Joar Björk; Niklas Juth
Journal:  Clin Ethics       Date:  2017-04-19

9.  Value-impregnated factual claims may undermine medical decision-making.

Authors:  Niels Lynøe; Gert Helgesson; Niklas Juth
Journal:  Clin Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.