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.

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.

Paternalism and certitude.

When paternalism is deemed morally justified, weak paternalism-which restricts itself to assisting the target of paternalism realize his own preferences-is the preferred (less problematic) alternative. In determining the appropriateness of weak paternalism, the level of certitude of the paternalist regarding the correctness of her assessment of the true preferences of the one-paternalized is obviously a crucial factor. Yet in the ethics of paternalism this parameter has escaped systematic treatment. This paper aims to initiate discussion on this indispensable consideration for weak paternalism. Analysing a real-life dilemma of paternalism in healthcare, the paper focuses on the theoretical question of how the paternalist can optimize her certitude by combining personal knowledge of the individual patient with population data on treatment refusal/consent of patients facing similar decisions. The paper presents an outline of a decision-making scheme that can be valuable in medical ethics and beyond.

On being paternalistic.

OBJECTIVE: What does 'being paternalistic' mean? CONCLUSION: Being paternalistic embodies a complex set of ideas that are currently viewed pejoratively, but which retain at its core, the goal of doing something good.

Neonatology in Austria: ethics to improve practice.

In the world of Austrian neonatal intensive care units, the role of ethics is recognized only partially. The normatively tense cases that are at the backdrop of this essay concern the situations around the limit of viability (weeks 22 + 0 days to 25 + 6 days of gestation), which is the point in the development of an extremely preterm infant at which there are chances of extra-uterine survival. This essay first outlines the key explicit ethical challenges that are mainly concerned with notions of uncertainty and best interest. Then, it attempts to elucidate the less explicit ethical challenges related to the notion of nudging in the neonatal practice and argue that the role of ethics needs to be recognized more-with the focus on the role of virtue ethics-in order to improve the practice of neonatal medicine.

Six Propositions against Ageism in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19 and of dying from it increases with age. This statistical association has led to numerous highly problematic policy suggestions and comments revealing underlying ageist attitudes and promoting age discrimination. Such attitudes are based on negative stereotypes on the health and functioning of older adults. As a result, the lives of older people are disvalued, including in possible triage situations and in the potential limitation of some measures against the spread of the pandemic to older adults. These outcomes are unjustified and unethical. We develop six propositions against the ageism underlying these suggestions to spur a more adequate response to the current pandemic in which the needs and dignity of older people are respected.

Emerging Ethical Challenges in Critical Care for the 21st Century: A Case-Based Discussion.

Ethical challenges for doctors and other health care professionals have existed since the practice of medicine began. Many of the oldest challenges live on to this day, such as who has more authority to make key decisions (autonomy vs. paternalism) and what are the boundaries of life at the beginning and at the end. Two powerful driving forces are new technologies and an ever-changing culture and society. The practice of medicine in intensive care units (ICUs) has been the source of many ethical challenges. Once firmly fixed concepts, such as death or "brain death" are now coming under increasing debate. In other areas, the concept of patient autonomy has been used to request life-prolonging therapies, once thought "futile." New technologies for procreation have necessitated new ethical challenges as well. In this paper, we will use a series of cases, based on experiences from our hospital ethics committee, that occurred over the course of several years and illustrate ethical challenges which are either new to us or not new but growing in frequency due to technological or societal changes. Each one of these topics is complex and worthy of its own large review but for this overview, we will briefly discuss the key points of each dilemma.

Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being developed for use in medicine, including for diagnosis and in treatment decision making. The use of AI in medical treatment raises many ethical issues that are yet to be explored in depth by bioethicists. In this paper, I focus specifically on the relationship between the ethical ideal of shared decision making and AI systems that generate treatment recommendations, using the example of IBM's Watson for Oncology. I argue that use of this type of system creates both important risks and significant opportunities for promoting shared decision making. If value judgements are fixed and covert in AI systems, then we risk a shift back to more paternalistic medical care. However, if designed and used in an ethically informed way, AI could offer a potentially powerful way of supporting shared decision making. It could be used to incorporate explicit value reflection, promoting patient autonomy. In the context of medical treatment, we need value-flexible AI that can both respond to the values and treatment goals of individual patients and support clinicians to engage in shared decision making.

The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y.

Over the last quarter of a century, English medical law has taken an increasingly firm stand against medical paternalism. This is exemplified by cases such as Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, Chester v Afshar, and Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. In relation to decision-making on behalf of incapacitous adults, the actuating principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is respect for patient autonomy. The only lawful acts in relation to an incapacitous person are acts which are in the best interests of that person. The 2005 Act requires a holistic assessment of best interests. Best interests are wider than 'medical best interests'. The 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court in An NHS Trust v Y (which concerned the question of whether a court needed to authorise the withdrawal of life-sustaining clinically administered nutrition/hydration (CANH) from patients in prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC)) risks reviving medical paternalism. The judgment, in its uncritical endorsement of guidelines from various medical organisations, may lend inappropriate authority to medical judgments of best interests and silence or render impotent non-medical contributions to the debate about best interests-so frustrating the 2005 Act. To minimise these dangers, a system of meditation should be instituted whenever it is proposed to withdraw (at least) life-sustaining CANH from (at least) patients with PDOC, and there needs to be a guarantee of access to the courts for families, carers and others who wish to challenge medical conclusions about withdrawal. This would entail proper public funding for such challenges.

Drawing the line on physician-assisted death.

Drawing the line on physician assistance in physician-assisted death (PAD) continues to be a contentious issue in many legal jurisdictions across the USA, Canada and Europe. PAD is a medical practice that occurs when physicians either prescribe or administer lethal medication to their patients. As more legal jurisdictions establish PAD for at least some class of patients, the question of the proper scope of this practice has become pressing. This paper presents an argument for restricting PAD to the terminally ill that can be accepted by defenders as well as critics of PAD for the terminally ill. The argument appeals to fairness-based paternalism and the social meaning of medical practice. These two considerations interact in various ways, as the paper explains. The right way to think about the social meaning of medical practice bears on fair paternalism as it relates to PAD and vice versa. The paper contends that these considerations have substantial force when directed against proposals to extend PAD to non-terminally ill patients, but considerably less force when directed against PAD for the terminally ill. The paper pays special attention to the case of non-terminally ill patients who suffer from treatment-resistant depression, as these patients present a potentially strong case for extending PAD beyond the terminally ill.

Informed consent and nudging.

In order to avoid patient abuse, under normal situations before performing a medical intervention on a patient, a physician must obtain informed consent from that patient, where to give genuine informed consent a patient must be competent, understand her condition, her options and their expected risks and benefits, and must expressly consent to one of those options. However, many patients refrain from the option that their physician believes to be best, and many physicians worry that their patients make irrational healthcare decisions, hindering their ability to provide efficient healthcare for their patients. Some philosophers have proposed a solution to this problem: they advocate that physicians nudge their patients to steer them towards their physician's preferred option. A nudge is any influence designed to predictably alter a person's behavior without limiting their options or giving them reasons to act. Proponents of nudging contend that nudges are consistent with obtaining informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with genuine informed consent, as it violates a physician's obligation to tell their patients the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during adequate disclosure.

Hospital ethics reflection groups: a learning and development resource for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a number of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the significance of ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. METHODS: This is a qualitative action research study, including systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. Short written descriptions of the ethical challenges presented in the ERGs also informed the analysis of significance. RESULTS: A recurring ethical challenge for clinicians, in a total of 63 cases described and assessed in 3 ethical reflection groups, is to strike a balance between respect for patient autonomy, paternalistic responsibility, professional responsibilities and institutional values. Both in psychiatric and general hospital departments, the study participants report a positive impact of ERG, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Significance for patients, 2) Significance for clinicians, and 3) Significance for ward managers. In wards characterized by short-time patient admissions, the cases assessed were retrospective and the beneficiaries of improved dialogue mainly future patients rather than the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge presented. In wards with longer admissions, the patients concerned also benefitted from the dialogue in the ERG. CONCLUSION: This study indicates a positive significance and impact of ERGs; constituting an interdisciplinary learning resource for clinicians, creating significance for themselves, the ward managers and the organization. By introducing specific examples, this study indicates that ERGs have significance for the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge, but mostly indirectly through learning among clinicians and development of clinical practice. More research is needed to further investigate the impact of ERGs seen from the perspectives of patients and relatives.

Truth-telling and doctor-assisted death as perceived by Israeli physicians.

BACKGROUND: Medicine has undergone substantial changes in the way medical dilemmas are being dealt with. Here we explore the attitude of Israeli physicians to two debatable dilemmas: disclosing the full truth to patients about a poor medical prognosis, and assisting terminally ill patients in ending their lives. METHODS: Attitudes towards medico-ethical dilemmas were examined through a nationwide online survey conducted among members of the Israeli Medical Association, yielding 2926 responses. RESULTS: Close to 60% of the respondents supported doctor-assisted death, while one third rejected it. Half of the respondents opposed disclosure of the full truth about a poor medical prognosis, and the others supported it. Support for truth-telling was higher among younger physicians, and support for doctor-assisted death was higher among females and among physicians practicing in hospitals. One quarter of respondents supported both truth-telling and assisted death, thereby exhibiting respect for patients' autonomy. This approach characterizes younger doctors and is less frequent among general practitioners. Another quarter of the respondents rejected truth-telling, yet supported assisted death, thereby manifesting compassionate pragmatism. This was associated with medical education, being more frequent among doctors educated in Israel, than those educated abroad. All this suggests that both personal attributes and professional experience affect attitudes of physicians to ethical questions. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of attitudes to two debatable medical dilemmas allowed portrayal of the multi-faceted medico-ethical scene in Israel. Moreover, this study, demonstrates that one can probe the ethical atmosphere of a given medical community, at various time points by using a few carefully selected questions.

Nudging in nursing.

Nudging is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and economics that proposes indirect suggestions to try to achieve non-forced compliance and to influence the decision making and behaviour of groups and individuals. Researchers in medical ethics are currently discussing whether nudging is ethically permissible in healthcare. In this article, we examine current knowledge about how different decisions (rational and pre-rational decisions, major and minor decisions) are made and how this decision-making process pertains to patients. We view this knowledge in light of the nursing project and the ongoing debate regarding the ethical legitimacy of nudging in healthcare. We argue that it is insufficient to discuss nudging in nursing and healthcare in light of free will and patient autonomy alone. Sometimes, nurses must take charge and exhibit leadership in the nurse-patient relationship. From the perspective of nursing as leadership, nudging becomes a useful tool for directing and guiding patients towards the shared goals of health, recovery and independence and away from suffering. The use of nudging in nursing to influence patients' decisions and actions must be in alignment with the nursing project and in accordance with patients' own values and goals.

An Ethical Claim for Providing Medical Recommendations in Pediatric Intensive Care.

The Declaration of Geneva was recently revised to emphasize patient autonomy and the importance of clinicians sharing medical knowledge. This reflects the welcome evolution of the doctor-patient relationship from one of paternalism to more informed, shared decision-making. Unfortunately, there is an increasing trend for clinicians to avoid making recommendations, instead providing a "menu" of care options from which patients and families must choose. This seems to be underpinned by the belief that it is unacceptably paternalistic to give guidance as to which course of action may be best to take. In this article, we argue that there is an ethical imperative for doctors to provide medical recommendations. This is discussed with particular emphasis on the pediatric critical care setting, where autonomy and shared decision-making are especially complex. We outline how a failure to provide clinical recommendations represents inadequate shared decision-making and erodes the doctor-patient relationship, leading to suboptimal care, paradoxically decreasing respect for autonomy. We describe an approach through which doctors can avoid paternalism without placing an undue burden of decision-making on families. We assert that patients' interests are best served by clinicians taking an active, relational role in shared decision-making, including exploration of values and giving explicit medical recommendations for care.

Ethical challenges assessed in the clinical ethics Committee of Psychiatry in the region of Southern Denmark in 2010-2015: a qualitative content analyses.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to give more insight into what ethical challenges clinicians in mental healthcare experience and discuss with a Clinical Ethics Committee in psychiatry in the Region of Southern Denmark. Ethical considerations are an important part of the daily decision-making processes and thereby for the quality of care in mental healthcare. However, such ethical challenges have been given little systematic attention - both in research and in practices. METHODS: A qualitative content analysis of 55 written case-reports from the Clinical Ethics Committee. The Committee offers clinicians in mental healthcare structured ethical analyses of ethical challenges and makes a thorough written case-report. RESULTS: The ethical challenges are grouped into three overarching topics: 1. Clinicians and their relation to patients and relatives. 2. Clinicians and institutional aspects of mental healthcare 3. Clinicians and mental healthcare in a wider social context. Through presentation of illustrative examples the complexity of daily clinical life in mental healthcare becomes evident, as well as typical interests, values and arguments. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study indicates that difficult ethical challenges are an inherent part of mental healthcare that requires time, space and competence to be dealt with adequately.

Vaginal delivery: An argument against requiring consent.

Birth by vaginal delivery is an evolutionary process refined over millennia to create a sustainable and safe method of human reproduction. A key argument against requiring consent for vaginal birth acknowledges that from an evolutionary point of view, vaginal delivery has successfully accompanied human development and remains the natural and default form of human birth. Concern has been raised by the Montgomery court case in the United Kingdom; however, the ruling does not mean consent is required for normal birth. What it does reaffirm is the need to engage patients in their care decisions when complications occur in pregnancy and delivery. Effective communication, rather than a legalistic consent pathway, is required for positive healthcare outcomes.

We need to treat pregnant women as adults: Women should be consented for an attempt at normal vaginal birth as for operative delivery, with risks and potential complications explained.

Since the mid-90s, Australian law has required doctors to disclose material risks of proposed treatment. Medical practitioners have had two decades to adapt, and, by and large, patient autonomy is acknowledged and respected by obtaining 'informed consent'. While problems with obtaining consent do surface in medico-legal litigation, practitioners are generally aware of the need to do so and usually comply with requirements. However, not in obstetrics. Here, even if material risk of a serious adverse event in an attempt at vaginal birth in a given case is over 50% (as it would be in the case of a 35-year-old primigravida at 41 + 3) obtaining informed consent is the exception rather than the rule. This degree of paternalism is not just unethical and immoral. It is illegal - and it needs to change.

The Ethics of Making Patients Responsible.

In their daily clinical work, healthcare professionals generally apply what seems to be a double standard for the responsibility of patients. On the one hand, patients are encouraged to take responsibility for lifestyle changes that can improve their chances of good health. On the other hand, when patients fail to follow such recommendations, they are not held responsible for the failure. This seeming inconsistency is explained in terms of the distinction between task responsibility and blame responsibility. The double standard for responsibility is shown to be epistemologically rational, ethically commendable, and therapeutically advantageous. However, this non-blaming approach to patient responsibility is threatened by proposals to assign lower priority in healthcare to patients who are themselves responsible for their disease. Such responsibility-based priority setting requires that physicians assign blame responsibility to their patients, a practice that would run into conflict with the ethical foundations of the patient-physician relationship. Therefore, such proposals should be rejected.

Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury.

This paper considers the ethical justification for the use of harm minimisation approaches with individuals who self-injure. While the general issues concerning harm minimisation have been widely debated, there has been only limited consideration of the ethical issues raised by allowing people to continue injuring themselves as part of an agreed therapeutic programme. I will argue that harm minimisation should be supported on the basis that it results in an overall reduction in harm when compared with more traditional ways of dealing with self-injurious behaviour. It will be argued that this is an example of a situation where healthcare professionals sometimes have a moral obligation to allow harm to come to their patients.