rss
J Med Ethics 2008;34:116-119 doi:10.1136/jme.2006.019257
  • Teaching and learning ethics

Medical education and patients’ responsibilities: back to the future?

  1. H Draper1,
  2. J Ives1,
  3. J Parle2,
  4. N Ross3
  1. 1
    Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
  2. 2
    Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
  3. 3
    Medical Education Unit, The Medical School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK
  1. Heather Draper, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; h.draper{at}bham.ac.uk
  • Received 22 September 2006
  • Revised 5 February 2007
  • Accepted 13 February 2007

Abstract

Medical student learning is dependent on an unwritten agreement between patients and the medical profession, in which students “practise” upon real patients in order that, when they are doctors, those same patients will benefit from the doctors’ skills. Given the increasing propensity for patients to refuse to take part in such learning, there is a danger that doctors will qualify without being truly competent. As patients, we must all ask ourselves, when asked to take part in medical teaching: if this student/trainee doesn’t learn now, on me and under supervision, how will the person be truly competent next time, when this is for real, and the patient might be me or my loved one?

We argue that a new and more explicit agreement is needed, in which the default should be that all patients are willing to help in the education of medical students, while we ensure that all such students are already competent in simulation before first practising upon real patients.

Footnotes

  • Funding: None

  • Competing interests: HD, JP and NR are all employees of the University of Birmingham and all are involved in the education and training of medical students as part of their job descriptions.

  • ↵iWe thank Lisa Schwartz for suggesting that our overall argument might be strengthened by adding, at this point, that when a student or trainee is present, the patient may actually benefit from the presence of two healthcare providers as opposed to one. Our reluctance to use this argument was primarily due to the fact that to do so would undermine the point we make about the doctor–patient interaction being patient-centred. Even if the patient did benefit from the presence of an additional carer, it would still be the case that the focus of the interaction ceases to be wholly on the patient, and the consultation becomes an educational, as well as a clinical, enterprise. Furthermore, while the patient might well decide that on balance she is better off (trading two carers off against being an educational tool), we intend our argument to be independent of this kind of immediate “utility” calculation, and focus instead on the patient’s longer-term interests and obligation.

  • ↵iiWe thank one of the reviewers for clarifying this point.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.