Four shades of paternalism in doctor-patient communication and their ethical implications.

The present study aims to explore the forms paternalistic communication can take in doctor-patient interactions and how they should be considered from a normative perspective. In contemporary philosophical debate, the problem with paternalism is often perceived as either undermining autonomy (the autonomy problem) or the paternalist viewing their judgment as superior (the superiority problem). In either case, paternalism is problematized mainly in a general, theoretical sense. In contrast, this paper investigates specific doctor-patient encounters, revealing distinct types of paternalistic communication. For this study, I reviewed videorecorded encounters from a Norwegian hospital to detect paternalism-specifically, doctors overriding patients' expressed preferences, presumably to benefit or protect the patients. I identified variations in paternalistic communication styles-termed paternalist modes-which I categorized into four types: the fighter, the advocate, the sympathizer, and the fisher. Drawing on these findings, I aim to nuance the debate on paternalism. Specifically, I argue that each paternalist mode carries its own normative implications and that the autonomy and the superiority problems manifest differently across the modes. Furthermore, by illustrating paternalism in communication through real-life cases, I aim to reach a more comprehensive understanding of what we mean by paternalistic doctors.

Phenomenology and empowerment in self-testing apps.

Although self-testing apps, a form of mobile health (mHealth) apps, are often marketed as empowering, it is not obvious how exactly they can empower their users-and in which sense of the word. In this article, I discuss two conceptualisations of empowerment as polar opposites-one in health promotion/mHealth and one in feminist theory-and demonstrate how both their applications to individually used self-testing apps run into problems. The first, prevalent in health promotion and mHealth, focuses on internal states and understands empowerment as an individual process. However, this version of empowerment has been accused of paternalism and responsibilisation. The second, feminist version considers structural conditions and foregrounds collective, political change, whose realisation is not obviously attainable for an individually used app. By pointing out the flaws of the positions that focus on either internal states or external conditions, and by engaging with theory from critical phenomenology, I argue that the interplay between them is where empowerment can take place. I propose to formulate empowerment in phenomenological terms as a shift in being-in-the-world and discuss how this conceptualisation of empowerment would avoid the criticism of previous empowerment narratives while being realisable by self-testing apps.

Association of nurse managers' paternalistic leadership and nurses' perceived workplace bullying: The mediating effect of organizational climate.

AIMS: To explore the association between nurse managers' paternalistic leadership and nurses' perceived workplace bullying (WPB), as well as to examine the mediating role of organizational climate in this association. BACKGROUND: There is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the relationship between nurse managers' paternalistic leadership, organizational climate and nurses' perceived WPB. Clarifying this relationship is crucial to understand how paternalistic leadership influences WPB and for nursing managers to seek organizational-level solutions to prevent it. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed from 4 January to 10 February 2022, in six tertiary hospitals in mainland China. Demographic information, Paternalistic Leadership Scale, Organizational Climate Scale and Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised were used in the survey. Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation analyses and a structural equation model were used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5093 valid questionnaires were collected. Moral leadership and authoritarian leadership have both direct and indirect effects on WPB through the mediating effect of organizational climate. The former is negatively related to WPB and the latter is positively related to WPB. Benevolent leadership was only negatively associated with WPB via the mediating effect of organizational climate. CONCLUSION: The three components of paternalistic leadership have different effects on WPB through the mediating effect of organizational climate. Nurse managers are recommended to strengthen moral leadership, balance benevolent leadership, reduce authoritarian leadership and strive to create a positive organizational climate in their efforts to mitigate WPB among nurses. IMPACT: This study enhanced our comprehension of the relationship between different leadership styles and WPB. Greater emphasis should be placed on moral leadership in the promotion of nursing managers and nursing leadership training programs. Additionally, nursing managers should focus on establishing a positive organizational climate that helps to reduce WPB. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. This study did not involve patients, service users, caregivers or members of the public.

To Know Me Is to Exonerate Me: Appeals to Character in Defense of the Willowbrook Hepatitis Study.

The Willowbrook Hepatitis Study is one of the best-known examples of unethical medical research, but the research has always had defenders. One of the more intriguing defenses continually used was that critics did not know the researchers on the study and, therefore, could not assess their ethics. This essay traces the appeal to the researchers' characters across published research and archival sources from the 1960s through today. These appeals reflect the observation as old as Aristotle that one of the most potent modes of persuasion is ethos or character. The specific types of character in these appeals develop out of the paternalistic nature of clinical and research practice in the mid-twentieth century. If the individual physician is the locus of medical judgment, then the physician's character becomes a key concern for bioethics. These appeals still appear and have implications for bioethics in the present day.

Two variants of 'constrained participation' in the care of vulnerable adults: A proof-of-concept study.

There has been a radical turn towards ideals of patient autonomy and person-centred care, and away from historically entrenched forms of medical paternalism, in the last 50 years of nursing practice. However, along the way, some shades of grey between the areas of ideal patient participation and of outright patient non-participation have been missed. The current article constitutes an exploratory proof-of-concept study of the real-world traction of a distinction-straddling concept of 'constrained participation' and its two sub-concepts of 'fought-for participation' and 'forced-to participation'. In order to concretise these additions to the conceptual terrain of person-centred participation and its anti-theses, we apply them to themes in the care of vulnerable older adults. In the final section, we close by eliciting some characterological, educational and clinical implications of adding these new tools also to the conceptual repertoire of nursing practice and education.

The phantasm of zero suicide.

Governments and non-governmental organisations are increasingly adopting a 'zero-suicide' goal, but what such a goal precisely involves is unclear. Ostensibly it strongly prioritises the prevention and elimination of all suicide. We argue that, so understood, a societal goal of zero suicide risks contravening several ethical principles. In terms of beneficence and non-maleficence, a 'zero-suicide' goal risks being inefficient and may burden or harm many people. Autonomy-wise, a blanket ban on all suicide is excessive. As regards social justice, zero suicide risks focusing on the symptoms of social malaise instead of the structures causing it. With respect to transparency, a 'zero' goal that cannot be met makes these authorities look detached and risks frustration, distrust and, worse, stigmatisation of suicide and of mental health conditions. Instead, we propose a middle path for suicide prevention, founded on harm reduction, 'soft group paternalism' and efforts directed at increased quality of life for disadvantaged groups. Although soft group paternalism respects autonomy, this approach permits coercive interferences in certain circumstances. We hope that the justificatory framework tying together these largely familiar elements is novel and sensible.

Reasoning and reversibility in capacity law.

A key objective of the law in the assessment of decision-making capacity in clinical settings is to allow clinicians and judges to avoid making value judgements about the reasons that patients use to refuse treatment. This paper advances two lines of argument in respect of this objective. The first is that authorities cannot rationally avoid significant evaluative judgements in the assessment of a patient's own assessment of the facts of their case. Assessing reasoning is unavoidably value-laden. Yet the underlying motivation behind clinicians' and the law's value-neutral aims, ie, the avoidance of undue paternalism, is worth preserving. That being so, the second line of argument will try to show that that underlying motivation is better served in a limited range of cases by embedding a 'reversibility standard' in the assessment process so that the patient can, if they wish, and in due course, bring about the consequences that they were prevented from realising as a result of a determination of incapacity.

The harm principle, personal identity and identity-relative paternalism.

Is it ethical for doctors or courts to prevent patients from making choices that will cause significant harm to themselves in the future? According to an important liberal principle the only justification for infringing the liberty of an individual is to prevent harm to others; harm to the self does not suffice.In this paper, I explore Derek Parfit's arguments that blur the sharp line between harm to self and others. I analyse cases of treatment refusal by capacitous patients and describe different forms of paternalism arising from a reductionist view of personal identity. I outline an Identity Relative Paternalistic Intervention Principle for determining when we should disallow refusal of treatment where the harm will be accrued by a future self, and consider objections including vagueness and non-identity.Identity relative paternalism does not always justify intervention to prevent harm to future selves. However, there is a stronger ethical case for doing so than is often recognised.

Artificial intelligence and the doctor-patient relationship expanding the paradigm of shared decision making.

Artificial intelligence (AI) based clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are becoming ever more widespread in healthcare and could play an important role in diagnostic and treatment processes. For this reason, AI-based CDSS has an impact on the doctor-patient relationship, shaping their decisions with its suggestions. We may be on the verge of a paradigm shift, where the doctor-patient relationship is no longer a dual relationship, but a triad. This paper analyses the role of AI-based CDSS for shared decision-making to better comprehend its promises and associated ethical issues. Moreover, it investigates how certain AI implementations may instead foster the inappropriate paradigm of paternalism. Understanding how AI relates to doctors and influences doctor-patient communication is essential to promote more ethical medical practice. Both doctors' and patients' autonomy need to be considered in the light of AI.

Decisional autonomy undermines advisees' judgments of experts in medicine and in life.

Over the past several decades, the United States medical system has increasingly prioritized patient autonomy. Physicians routinely encourage patients to come to their own decisions about their medical care rather than providing patients with clearer yet more paternalistic advice. Although political theorists, bioethicists, and philosophers generally see this as a positive trend, the present research examines the important question of how patients and advisees in general react to full decisional autonomy when making difficult decisions under uncertainty. Across six experiments (N = 3,867), we find that advisers who give advisees decisional autonomy rather than offering paternalistic advice are judged to be less competent and less helpful. As a result, advisees are less likely to return to and recommend these advisers and pay them lower wages. Importantly, we also demonstrate that advisers do not anticipate these effects. We document these results both inside and outside the medical domain, suggesting that the preference for paternalism is not unique to medicine but rather is a feature of situations in which there are adviser-advisee asymmetries in expertise. We find that the preference for paternalism holds when advice is solicited or unsolicited, when both paternalism and autonomy are accompanied by expert guidance, and it persists both before and after the outcomes of paternalistic advice are realized. Lastly, we see that the preference for paternalism only occurs when decision makers perceive their decision to be difficult. These results challenge the benefits of recently adopted practices in medical decision making that prioritize full decisional autonomy.

A bit of medical paternalism? A qualitative study on power relations between women and healthcare providers when deciding on mode of birth in five public maternity wards of Argentina.

BACKGROUND: Whether women should be able to decide on mode of birth in healthcare settings has been a topic of debate in the last few decades. In the context of a marked increase in global caesarean section rates, a central dilemma is whether pregnant women should be able to request this procedure without medical indication. Since 2015, Law 25,929 of Humanised Birth is in place in Argentina. This study aims at understanding the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women, and labour companions regarding decision-making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, central concepts of power theory are used. METHODS: This study uses a qualitative design. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers were conducted in five maternity wards in different regions of Argentina. Participants were purposively selected using heterogeneity sampling and included obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to inductively develop themes and categories. RESULTS: Three themes were developed: (1) Healthcare providers reconceptualize decision-making processes of mode of birth to make women's voices matter; (2) Healthcare providers feel powerless against women's request to choose mode of birth; (3) Healthcare providers struggle to redirect women's decision regarding mode of birth. An overarching theme was built to explain the power relations between healthcare providers, women and labour companions: Healthcare providers' loss of beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the complexity of the healthcare provider-woman interaction in a context in which women are, in practice, allowed to choose mode of birth. Even though healthcare providers claim to welcome women being an active part of the decision-making processes, they feel powerless when women make autonomous decisions regarding mode of birth. They perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in the eyes of patients and consider fruitful communication on risks and benefits of each mode of birth to not always be possible. At the same time, providers perform an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place.

In the last few decades, there has been a debate on whether women should be able to choose if they haver a vaginal birth or a caesarean section. This debate has been framed by the fact that an increasing number of caesarean sections are being performed. Since 2015, Argentina has a Law of Humanised Birth. We conducted a study to understand the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women and labour companions in decision making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, we used central concepts of power theory. We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers in five maternity wards of Argentina. The interviewees were obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. We used thematic analysis to build themes from the data. We discovered that healthcare providers perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. Even though they claim to want women to make autonomous decisions, they feel frustrated when this happens. They also perceive it to be more difficult to communicate with patients regarding the risks and benefits of vaginal birth and caesarean section. At the same time, providers carry out an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place.

The conundrums of the reasonable patient standard in English medical law.

BACKGROUND: In its 2015 decision in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom overruled the long-standing, paternalistic prudent doctor standard of care in favour of a new reasonable patient standard which obligates doctors to make their patients aware of all material risks of the recommended treatment and of any reasonable alternative treatment. This landmark judgment has been of interest to the rest of the common law world. A judicial trend of invoking Montgomery to impose more stringent requirements on doctors is discernible in subsequent decisions since then. MAIN BODY: In this narrative review, without questioning the idea that properly informed patients should play a more active role in procedures affecting their own health in furtherance of their autonomy, safety, and consumer rights, we identify and analyse, with the aid of realistic clinical thought experiments, three practical conundrums that the Montgomery standard may inflict on the daily work of doctors, unfairly exposing them to arbitrary legal risks. CONCLUSIONS: These conundrums pertain to the ascertainment of the risks that must be disclosed to the patient under the test of 'materiality'; the legal uncertainty as to the scope of the exceptions; and the actual ability of doctors to cope with the pressures of time. These conundrums offer ripe opportunities to rethink the proper role of judicially developed medical law in modern health care practice.

Autonomy and paternalism in shared decision-making in a Saudi Arabian tertiary hospital: A cross-sectional study.

Medical paternalism has long been a common medical practice. However, patient autonomy in healthcare has been recently adopted by doctors and patients alike. This study explored whether doctors and patients in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia preferred autonomy or paternalism in shared decision-making. A total of 118 participants (51 patients requiring total knee replacement, owing to stages 3-4 of osteoarthritis, and 67 doctors) from the Eastern province, Saudi Arabia. responded to a 17-question category-based questionnaire involving four scales of autonomy. Descriptive statistics and chi-square test results revealed that in this hospital, patients preferred a paternalistic approach toward their medical care along with a full disclosure of the risks related to surgical procedures. We recommend health education regarding the specific autonomy subscales (doctor knows best, patient should decide, right to non-participation, and obligatory risk information), and the implementation of protocols that protect patients' rights and enhance personal autonomy.

Co-production as a resolution to authoritarian attitudes in healthcare.

Healthcare services should be provided according to contemporary ethical norms that require patients' active engagement in all the relevant processes. However, authoritarian attitudes and behaviors in healthcare, one of which is paternalism, put patients in a passive role. But, as Avedis Donabedian emphasizes, patients are co-producers of care, reformers of healthcare, informants, and definers and evaluators of quality. Overlooking these significant functions and merely focusing on physicians' benevolence due to their medical knowledge and skills in the production of healthcare services would leave the fate of patients in the hands of clinicians and impose physicians' hegemony on patients and their choices. Nevertheless, the concept of co-production is a practical and effective mechanism to redefine the language used in healthcare by recognizing patients as co-producers and equal partners. The application of co-production in healthcare would improve the therapeutic relationship, decrease ethical violations, and promote the patient's dignity.

Paternalistic persuasion: are doctors paternalistic when persuading patients, and how does persuasion differ from convincing and recommending?

In contemporary paternalism literature, persuasion is commonly not considered paternalistic. Moreover, paternalism is typically understood to be problematic either because it is seen as coercive, or because of the insult of the paternalist considering herself superior. In this paper, I argue that doctors who persuade patients act paternalistically. Specifically, I argue that trying to persuade a patient (here understood as aiming for the patient to consent to a certain treatment, although he prefers not to) should be differentiated from trying to convince him (here understood as aiming for the patient to want the treatment) and recommending (the doctor merely providing her professional opinion). These three forms of influence are illustrated by summaries of video-recorded hospital encounters. While convincing and recommending are generally not paternalistic, I argue that persuasion is what I call communicative paternalism and that it is problematic for two reasons. First, the patient's preferences are dismissed as unimportant. Second, the patient might wind up undergoing treatment against his preferences. This does not mean that persuasion always should be avoided, but it should not be undertaken lightly, and doctors should be aware of the fine line between non-paternalism and paternalism. The fact that my analysis of paternalism differs from traditional accounts does not imply that I deem these to be wrong, but rather that paternalism should be considered as a more multi-faceted concept than previous accounts allow for.

Vulnerability, ageism, and health: is it helpful to label older adults as a vulnerable group in health care?

Despite the diversity of ageing, society and academics often describe and label older persons as a vulnerable group. As the term vulnerability is frequently interchangeably used with frailty, dependence, or loss of autonomy, a connection between older age and deficits is promoted. Concerning this, the question arises to what extent it may be helpful to refer to older persons as vulnerable specifically in the context of health care. After analyzing different notions of vulnerability, I argue that it is illegitimate to conclude that older age is related to increased vulnerability. Much more, identifying older adults as a vulnerable group is closely related to ageism and can be associated with paternalistic benevolence and a tendency to overprotection, especially within health care. Additionally, even though older adults are more often in situations of increased vulnerability due to their potentially higher need for health care, I argue further that older adults mainly become a vulnerable group due to ageism. In this way, it can be concluded that the vulnerability of older adults does not originate in certain attributes of the group, but arises from a characteristic of society and, in turn, health personnel, namely ageism. Labeling older adults as vulnerable therefore is only helpful, when it is used to raise awareness of the widespread ageism in society, in this context, especially in the setting of health care, and the negative consequences thereof for older adults.

Voluntary sterilisation of young childless women: not so fast.

An increasing number of bioethicists are raising concerns that young childless women requesting sterilisation as means of birth control are facing unfair obstacles. It is argued that these obstacles are inconsistent, paternalistic, that they reflect pronatalist bias and that men seem to face fewer obstacles. It is commonly recommended that physicians should change their approach to this type of patient. In contrast, I argue that physicians' reluctance to eagerly follow an unusual request is understandable and that whatever obstacles result from this reluctance serve as a useful filter for women who are not seriously committed to their expressed requests for sterilisation. As women already disproportionally bear the birth control burden, less resistance that men might be getting in terms of voluntary sterilisation works to women's advantage, providing a much needed balance. Societal attitudes towards women and motherhood should not be confused with individual physicians' reasonable reluctance to jump at a serious elective procedure at fairly mild expression of interest.

Physician outreach during a pandemic: shared or collective responsibility?

In 'Ethics of sharing medical knowledge with the community: is the physician responsible for medical outreach during a pandemic?' Strous and Karni note that the revised physician's pledge in the World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva obligates individual physicians to share medical knowledge, which they interpret to mean a requirement to share knowledge publicly and through outreach. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Strous and Karni defend a form of medical paternalism insofar as the individual physician must reach out to communities who may not want, or know to seek out, medical advice, for reasons of public health and health equity. Strous and Karni offer a novel defence of why physicians ought to intervene even in insular communities, and they offer suggestions for how this could be done in culturally sensitive ways. Yet their view rests on an unfounded interpretation of the Geneva Declaration language. More problematically, their paper confuses shared and collective responsibility, misattributing the scope of individual physician obligations in potentially harmful ways. In response, this reply delineates between shared and collective responsibility, and suggests that to defend the obligation of medical outreach Strous and Karni propose, it is better conceptualised as a collective responsibility of the medical profession, rather than a shared responsibility of individual physicians. This interpretation rejects paternalism on the part of individual providers in favour of a more sensitive and collaborative practice of knowledge sharing between physicians and communities, and in the service of collective responsibility.

Dignity of Risk in Rehabilitation: Theory and Practice.

Dignity of risk, as originally defined by Robert Perske (1972), focused on the treatment of people with intellectual impairments and the need to shift away from paternalism. However, the term also resonates deeply in other health-care situations today. The concept of dignity of risk is tricky to operationalize in many contexts, including in medical decision-making during rehabilitation. In some cases, clinicians may focus solely on risk and how best to "minimize" risk to patients, rather than on understanding and fleshing out options and choices. Questions naturally surface, such as: whose risk are we seeking to limit and at what cost to a patient's dignity? How do personal choices relate to patients' values and quality of life? Can we employ a shared decision-making model when discussing risk taking? When we look closely, we recognize that dignity of risk is at play when cognitively intact patients disregard medical advice that is viewed as the standard of care. This article closely examines this type of risk, the context in which it arises in rehabilitation, and opportunities for shared decision-making that can integrate dignity of risk principles.

Could Behavioral Economics Mitigate Shortcomings in Shared Decision-Making?

While shared decision-making (SDM) is generally considered to be the standard in current clinical practice, strict application of SDM can result in adverse outcomes in certain contexts. This article examines two illustrative cases-antibiotic over-prescription and decision-making at or near the end of life-to highlight how strictly applied SDM can result in suboptimal outcomes. The article continues to describe how strategies from libertarian paternalism, particularly default setting, framing, and nudging, can be valuable tools in supplementing strict applications of SDM, resulting in improved outcomes and patient care on both individual and societal levels.