PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12953677

Misguided guidelines.

Abstract

The proposed guidelines would require detailed, probing inquiry into motivation for choosing assisted suicide. This is an appropriate requirement in principle. In practice, it will be virtually impossible to carry out this inquiry within likely statutory time limits. Evaluators most likely will either reject the guidelines as impractical or give them merely perfunctory observance. There is, moreover, an inherent tension in the evaluator's relationship with the patient between empathy and impersonal distancing that the guidelines do not adequately acknowledge; this tension necessarily compromises the evaluator's ability to apply the guidelines in the probing, detailed manner they envision. The guidelines provide false comfort that physician-assisted suicide can be carried out with adequately sensitive monitoring of voluntariness and mental competence.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R A Burt. 2000. Misguided guidelines.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12953677/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent.

Enhancing patient choice is a central theme of medical ethics and law. Informed consent is the legal process used to promote patient autonomy; shared decision making is a widely promoted ethical approach. These processes may most usefully be seen as distinct in clinically and ethically important respects. The approach outlined in this article uses a model that arrays all medical decisions along 2 axes: risk and certainty. At the extremes of these continua, 4 decision types are produced, each of which constrains the principal actors in predictable ways. Shared decision making is most appropriate in situations of uncertainty, in which 2 or more clinically reasonable alternatives exist. When there is only 1 realistic choice, patient and physician may gather and exchange information; however, the patient cannot be empowered to make choices that do not exist. In contrast, informed consent does not require the presence of clinical choice; it is appropriate for all decisions of significant risk, even if there is only one option. When a clinical decision contains both risk and uncertainty, shared decision making and informed consent are both appropriate. For decisions of lower risk, consent should still be present, but it can be simple rather than informed. Clinicians may use this analysis as a guide to their own interactions with patients. In the continuing effort to provide patients with appropriate decisional authority over their own medical choices, shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent each has a distinct role to play.

Decision Making↗