Article Text
Abstract
Some philosophers have argued that during the process of obtaining informed consent, physicians should try to nudge their patients towards consenting to the option the physician believes best, where a nudge is any influence that is expected to predictably alter a person’s behaviour without (substantively) restricting her options. Some proponents of nudging even argue that it is a necessary and unavoidable part of securing informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with obtaining informed consent. I assume informed consent requires that a physician tells her patient the truth about her options and argue that nudging is incompatible with truth-telling. Instead, nudging satisfies Harry Frankfurt’s account of bullshit.
- informed consent
- truth disclosure
- decision-making
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributor WS is the sole contributor.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- At odds with the truth
- Physicians’ framing and recommendations. Are they nudging? And do they violate the requirements of informed consent?
- Truth be told: not all nudging is bullshit
- The Cohen problem of informed consent
- Deception in medicine: acupuncturist cases
- Deception, intention and clinical practice
- Truthful nudging
- Professional recommendations: disclosing facts and values
- The duty to be Well-informed: The case of depression
- To lie or not to lie: resident physician attitudes about the use of deception in clinical practice