JME

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, A
Right arrow Articles by Braunack-Mayer, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lawlor, A
Right arrow Articles by Braunack-Mayer, A
J Med Ethics 2004;30:539-543
© 2004 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics


CLINICAL ETHICS

Doctors’ views about the importance of shared values in HIV positive patient care: a qualitative study

A Lawlor1, A Braunack-Mayer2

1 Department of Public Health, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
2 Department of Public Health, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia

Correspondence to:
Dr A Braunack-Mayer
Lecturer in Ethics, Department of Public Health, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; annette.braunackmayer{at}adelaide.edu.au Robert Veatch has proposed a model of the doctor-patient relationship that has as its foundation the sharing of values between the doctor and the patient. This paper uses qualitative research conducted with six doctors involved in the long term, specialised care of HIV positive patients in South Australia to explore the practical application of Veatch’s value sharing model in that setting. The research found that the doctors in this study linked "values" with sexual identity such that they defined value sharing, in part, as a shared set of values and beliefs about sexual identity and practices. They voluntarily identified themselves as either homosexual or heterosexual and they regarded the relation between their own sexual identity and that of their patients as important for the provision of quality care. None of the doctors thought that value sharing, in the way they defined it, was essential to the clinical relationship, but the homosexual doctors attributed a greater degree of importance to it than their heterosexual colleagues.


Abbreviations: GHAM, gay and other homosexually active men

Keywords: doctor-patient relationship; professional ethics; HIV; AIDS; values







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2004 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics.