The question of whether old age should or should not play a role in medical decision-making for the elderly patient is regularly debated in ethics and medicine. In this paper we investigate exactly how age influences the decision-making process. To explore the normative argumentation in the decisions regarding an elderly patient we make use of the argumentation model advanced by Toulmin. By expanding the model in order to identify normative components in the argumentation process it is possible to analyse the way that age-related value judgements influence the medical decision-making process. We apply the model to practice descriptions made by medical students after they had attended consultations and meetings in medical practice during their clinical training. Our results show the pervasive character of age-related value judgements. They influence the physician’s decision in several ways and at several points in the decision-making process. Such explicit value judgements were not exclusively used for arguments against further diagnosis or treatment of older patients. We found no systematic “ageist” pattern in the clinical decisions by physicians. Since age plays such an important, yet hidden role in the medical decision-making process, we make a plea for revealing such normative argumentation in order to gain transparency and accountability in this process. An explicit deliberative approach will make the medical decision-making process more transparent and improve the physician–patient relationship, creating confidence and trust, which are at the heart of medical practice.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: Maastricht University public funding.
Competing interests: None declared.
↵i In his model Toulmin also made use of qualifiers to indicate the strength of an argument made. For the purpose of our research this was not needed. In addition, a more detailed analysis is required to be able to qualify a claim made. The material as we use it in this paper does not provide these details.
↵ii We are aware of other structural arrangements of the Toulmin model allowing a more interactive approach (http://www-rohan.sdsu.sdu/digger/305/tpulmin_model). However, in this paper we choose to highlight the differences rather than the interactions of day-to-day practice, as the latter requires different research methods.
↵iii This distinction is also used by Brown in his model on ethical process.18
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Preferences of acutely ill patients for participation in medical decision-making
- Treatment patterns and associated factors in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a population-based study
- The ethics of semantics in medicine
- What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study
- Testimonial injustice in medical machine learning
- Patient involvement in decision-making: a cross-sectional study in a Malaysian primary care clinic
- Evaluating a patient's request for life-prolonging treatment: an ethical framework
- Old problems in need of new (narrative) approaches? A young physician–bioethicist’s search for ethical guidance in the practice of physician-assisted dying in the Netherlands
- Shared decision-making in the ICU from the perspective of physicians, nurses and patients: a qualitative interview study
- Predictors of hospitalised patients' preferences for physician-directed medical decision-making