Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Temporising and respect for patient self-determination
  1. Jenny Lindberg1,2,
  2. Mats Johansson1,
  3. Linus Broström1
  1. 1 Departement of Clinical Sciences, Lund, Medical Ethics, Lunds Universitet, Lund, Sweden
  2. 2 Department of Nephrology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to PhD Mats Johansson, Departement of Clinical Sciences, Lund, Medical Ethics, Lund University, Lund 221 82, Sweden; mats.johansson{at}med.lu.se

Abstract

The principle of self-determination plays a crucial role in contemporary clinical ethics. Somewhat simplified, it states that it is ultimately the patient who should decide whether or not to accept suggested treatment or care. Although the principle is much discussed in the academic literature, one important aspect has been neglected, namely the fact that real-world decision making is temporally extended, in the sense that it generally takes some time from the point at which the physician (or other health care professional) determines that there is a decision to be made and that the patient is capable of making it, to the point at which the patient is actually asked for his or her view. This article asks under what circumstances, if any, temporising—waiting to pose a certain treatment question to a patient judged to have decision-making capacity—is compatible with the principle of self-determination.

  • decision-making
  • autonomy
  • competence/incompetence
  • clinical ethics
  • paternalism

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors Theoretical work. All authors have participated on equal terms.

  • Funding Jenny Lindberg’s contribution to this article is funded by the Newman Institute, Uppsala, Sweden.

  • Competing interests None declared.

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

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

Request Permissions

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.