rss
J Med Ethics 2009;35:419-423 doi:10.1136/jme.2008.027235
  • Clinical ethics
    • Paper

Understanding respect: learning from patients

  1. N W Dickert1,
  2. N E Kass2
  1. 1
    Emory University School of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Emory University Briarcliff Campus, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA
  2. 2
    Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and Berman Institute of Bioethics, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  1. Dr Neal W Dickert, Emory University School of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, EPICORE, Bldg A, Suite 1N, Mailstop 1256/001/1AR, Emory University Briarcliff Campus, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA; njr{at}emory.edu
  • Received 2 September 2008
  • Revised 26 January 2009
  • Accepted 31 March 2009

Abstract

Background: The importance of respecting patients and participants in clinical research is widely recognised. However, what it means to respect persons beyond recognising them as autonomous is unclear, and little is known about what patients find to be respectful.

Objective: To understand patients’ conceptions of respect and what it means to be respected by medical providers.

Design: Qualitative study from an academic cardiology clinic, using semistructured interviews with 18 survivors of sudden cardiac death.

Results: Patients believed that respecting persons incorporates the following major elements: empathy, care, autonomy, provision of information, recognition of individuality, dignity and attention to needs.

Conclusions: Making patients feel respected, or valued as a person, is a multi-faceted task that involves more than recognising autonomy. While patients’ views of respect do not determine what respect means, these patients expressed important intuitions that may be of substantial conceptual relevance.

Footnotes

  • Funding: During the conduct of this study, Dr Dickert received funding from the NIH Medical Scientist Training Program. This project received support from the Berman Institute of Bioethics.

  • Competing interests: None declared.

  • Provenance and Peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

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.