Article Text
Abstract
Amid neglect of patients’ contribution to error has been a failure to ask whether patients are morally responsible for their errors. This paper aims to help answer this question and so define a worthy response to the errors. Recent work on medical errors has emphasised system deficiencies and discouraged finding people to blame. We scrutinise this approach from an incompatibilist, agent causation position and draw on Hart’s taxonomy of four senses of moral responsibility: role responsibility; capacity responsibility; causal responsibility; and liability responsibility. Each sense is shown to contribute to an overall theoretical judgment as to whether patients are morally responsible for their errors (and success in avoiding them). Though how to weight the senses is unclear, patients appear to be morally responsible for the avoidable errors they make, contribute to or can influence.
- patient
- error
- moral responsibility
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Sources of support: This research was made possible by the salary funding provided by ProCare Health Limited.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Personal responsibility within health policy: unethical and ineffective
- Just health responsibility
- Priority setting and personal health responsibility: an analysis of Norwegian key policy documents
- Taking the blame: appropriate responses to medical error
- Blame and its consequences for healthcare professionals: response to Tigard
- Taking one for the team: a reiteration on the role of self-blame after medical error
- Primary care physicians’ willingness to disclose oncology errors involving multiple providers to patients
- Impact of comorbidities on clinical prognosis in 1280 patients with different types of COVID-19
- Factors associated with disclosure of medical errors by housestaff
- Anticoagulant therapy: we have to do better! A systematic review