PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17219940

Patients who challenge.

Abstract

Individuals have different values. They seek to express their individuality even when receiving medical care. It is a part of modern medical practice and respect for patient autonomy to show respect for different values. We give an account of what it means to respect different values and challenging patients in medical practice. Challenging choices are often choices which are perceived by many to be either irrational or against a person's interests, such as engaging in harmful or excessively risky activities. When the medical profession is involved in such choices, the basic medical principle of acting in a person's best interests is challenged. Often doctors refuse to respect controversial choices on paternalistic grounds. We should all respect and facilitate the controversial choices of competent individuals, subject to resource limitations, our own and others well-being and autonomy, and the public interest. But more importantly, sometimes such choices make for a better, more autonomous life. Sometimes, such choices reflect considerations of global well-being or altruism, or idiosyncratic attitudes to risk. Sometimes, they reflect unusual values. However, in some other cases, controversial choices are irrational and are not expressions of our autonomy. Doctors should assist patients to make rational if individual choices. The patient also bears the responsibility for bringing his beliefs to the attention of the clinician.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael Ward, Julian Savulescu. 2006. Patients who challenge.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2006.09.003

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Perception of training needs and opportunities in advanced airway skills: a survey of British and Irish trainees.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We surveyed delegates at the Group of Anaesthetists in Training (UK) meeting to investigate evidence of a training-gap (number of fibreoptic intubations believed to bestow competence vs. number actually performed). METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to and collected from delegates in person. Questions covered six areas, including experience of fibreoptic intubation and cricothyrotomy, fibreoptic intubation as a specialist skill and ethical issues. RESULTS: We received 221 replies (76%). All trainees believed competence to be achievable with 10 intubations (interquartile range (IQR) 10-20); the median number performed was 2 (IQR 0-4). This was statistically significant for the groups' senior house officers, 1st and 2nd year registrars and 3rd and 4th year registrars; P < 0.0001. Many final year trainees (12/20, 60%) also failed to achieve their competency target. Few trainees had seen or performed any cricothyrotomies (medians 0, IQRs 0-1 and 0-0). Most (195/208, 94%) believed that fibreoptic intubation was a core skill and 199/212 (94%) believed that all should be competent by completion of training. Ten percent (n = 208) felt it unethical to perform an awake training intubation with full consent and 10% believed it acceptable without explanation. Most (82.7%) would fibreoptically intubate an asleep patient (requiring intubation) without consent. CONCLUSION: Trainees reported a gap between their perception of competence and achievement in awake fibreoptic intubation. Simple and complex simulations and structured training programmes may help. Anaesthetists must address the ethics of clinical training in advanced airway management.

Anesthesiology↗