UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Physicians’ personal values in determining medical decision-making capacity: a survey study


Hermann, Helena; Trachsel, Manuel; Biller-Andorno, Nikola (2015). Physicians’ personal values in determining medical decision-making capacity: a survey study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(9):739-744.

Abstract

Decision-making capacity (DMC) evaluations are complex clinical judgements with important ethical implications for patients' self-determination. They are achieved not only on descriptive grounds but are inherently normative and, therefore, dependent on the values held by those involved in the DMC evaluation. To date, the issue of whether and how physicians' personal values relate to DMC evaluation has never been empirically investigated. The present survey study aimed to investigate this question by exploring the relationship between physicians' value profiles and the use of risk-relative standards in capacity evaluations. The findings indicate that physicians' personal values are of some significance in this regard. Those physicians with relatively high scores on the value types of achievement, power-resource, face and conformity to interpersonal standards were more likely to apply risk-relative criteria in a range of situations, using more stringent assessment standards when interventions were riskier. By contrast, those physicians who strongly emphasise hedonism, conformity to rules and universalism concern were more likely to apply equal standards regardless of the consequences of a decision. Furthermore, it has been shown that around a quarter of all respondents do not appreciate that their values impact on their DMC evaluations, highlighting a need to better sensitise physicians in this regard. The implications of these findings are discussed, especially in terms of the moral status of the potential and almost unavoidable influence of physicians' values.

Abstract

Decision-making capacity (DMC) evaluations are complex clinical judgements with important ethical implications for patients' self-determination. They are achieved not only on descriptive grounds but are inherently normative and, therefore, dependent on the values held by those involved in the DMC evaluation. To date, the issue of whether and how physicians' personal values relate to DMC evaluation has never been empirically investigated. The present survey study aimed to investigate this question by exploring the relationship between physicians' value profiles and the use of risk-relative standards in capacity evaluations. The findings indicate that physicians' personal values are of some significance in this regard. Those physicians with relatively high scores on the value types of achievement, power-resource, face and conformity to interpersonal standards were more likely to apply risk-relative criteria in a range of situations, using more stringent assessment standards when interventions were riskier. By contrast, those physicians who strongly emphasise hedonism, conformity to rules and universalism concern were more likely to apply equal standards regardless of the consequences of a decision. Furthermore, it has been shown that around a quarter of all respondents do not appreciate that their values impact on their DMC evaluations, highlighting a need to better sensitise physicians in this regard. The implications of these findings are discussed, especially in terms of the moral status of the potential and almost unavoidable influence of physicians' values.

Citations

4 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 23 Nov 2015
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Autonomy; Capacity; Ethics; Informed Consent; Paternalism
Language:English
Date:2015
Deposited On:23 Nov 2015 10:09
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 19:32
Publisher:BMJ Publishing Group
ISSN:0306-6800
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102263
PubMed ID:25784707

Download

[img]
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 168kB
View at publisher
[img]
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 264kB

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations