Paul Walker ponders the best type of relationship between a doctor and a patient.
How well do you get on with your doctor? Every clinical consultation involves two people interacting, so should be seen as a relationship, and a moral encounter. The Hippocratic Oath, to do the best for the patient, and similar commitments grounded in a classical virtue ethics framework have been professed at graduation ceremonies of young doctors over centuries. Individual clinicians, however, can relate to individual patients and their families in different ways. Here I will simplify the various models of the doctor-patient relationship to three: the paternalistic model; the radical individualism model; and the shared decision-making model.
The Paternalistic Model
The ‘paternalistic model’ emphasises that the doctor’s caring is based upon long medical training and expert, specialised, and often technical knowledge. This model may be summarised as ‘doctor knows best’. Here the values important to the patient are accorded less importance than what the doctor believes is in the patient’s best interest.
This model is based predominantly upon the ethical principle of beneficence (meaning, ‘to do good to’), with patients receiving that intervention which, in the doctor’s assessment, is best suited to the patient in order to help restore them to health or to relieve their suffering. This principle requires that the doctor place the benefit of the patient above their own; and that they not make decisions for financial or other gain, and they also seek assistance from other clinicians when that is in the patient’s best interests. However, in non-emergency (‘elective’) situations, the paternalistic model brings the principle of beneficence into conflict with the principle of patient autonomy.
Diese Geschichte stammt aus der April/May 2017-Ausgabe von Philosophy Now.
Starten Sie Ihre 7-tägige kostenlose Testversion von Magzter GOLD, um auf Tausende kuratierte Premium-Storys sowie über 8.000 Zeitschriften und Zeitungen zuzugreifen.
Bereits Abonnent ? Anmelden
Diese Geschichte stammt aus der April/May 2017-Ausgabe von Philosophy Now.
Starten Sie Ihre 7-tägige kostenlose Testversion von Magzter GOLD, um auf Tausende kuratierte Premium-Storys sowie über 8.000 Zeitschriften und Zeitungen zuzugreifen.
Bereits Abonnent? Anmelden
Anselm (1033-1109)
Martin Jenkins recalls the being of the creator of the ontological argument.
Is Brillo Box an Illustration?
Thomas E. Wartenberg uses Warhol's work to illustrate his theory of illustration.
Why is Freedom So Important To Us?
John Shand explains why free will is basic to humanity.
The Funnel of Righteousness
Peter Worley tells us how to be right, righter, rightest.
We're as Smart as the Universe Gets
James Miles argues, among other things, that E.T. will be like Kim Kardashian, and that the real threat of advanced AI has been misunderstood.
Managing the Mind
Roger Haines contemplates how we consciously manage our minds.
lain McGilchrist's Naturalized Metaphysics
Rogério Severo looks at the brain to see the world anew.
Love & Metaphysics
Peter Graarup Westergaard explains why love is never just physical, with the aid of Donald Davidson's anomalous monism.
Mary Leaves Her Room
Nigel Hems asks, does Mary see colours differently outside her room?
From Birds To Brains
Jonathan Moens considers whether emergence can explain minds from brains.