| |||||||||||||||
The problem, of course, is that in practice, the exercise of autonomy in the medical context is frequently rather messier and more complicated than the prevailing bioethical theory and law would have us believe. Every physician who cares for patients knows this, and University of Michigan law professor Carl Schneider explicates this reality cogently in the most comprehensive, organized summary and analysis to date of the quantitative and qualitative empirical research on the actual process of medical decision making. Complemented by a thorough examination of the voluminous literature of memoirs by former patients and by Schneider's own studies of patients with renal disorders, the result is a scholarly, insightful rejection of the contemporary bioethical wisdom that the making of complex medical decisions can be reduced to a single, uniform, legally enforceable model.
In place of the current emphasis on maximizing patients' autonomy by ensuring their independence from others, Schneider urges as the ideal an optimizing of their autonomy. Optimal, rather than maximal, involvement of patients in decision making would take into consideration particular variables pertaining to the patient (e.g., the existence of intimate relationships that the patient might wish to rely on instead of exercising his or her independence) and to the medical context (e.g., whether the choice that the patient faces is chiefly technical or value-laden, whether it is reversible or permanent, and whether it will be made once or repeatedly).
According to Schneider, however, even this ideal of fashioning informed consent to conform to the individual patient and the particular context of his or her life will be essentially unattainable in an increasingly bureaucratized health care marketplace in which the locus of decision making moves steadily away from both patient and physician, toward faceless third parties. Thus, Schneider ultimately calls for less emphasis on the process of medical decision making (the due-process approach of informed-consent doctrine that frequently results in empty rather than meaningful consent) in favor of a bioethical perspective that focuses on the results of that process. "Perhaps," he suggests, "we should redirect our attention away from the procedures by which medical decisions are made and toward their substance.... One alternative is to look directly at those decisions and try to improve them.... It may be more fruitful to change what medicine does rather than to increase patients' autonomy." In place of the current consumer-choice model, he proffers detailed advice on how to begin to achieve the two aspects of the consumer-welfare model that he thinks most people would prefer -- namely, competence and kindness.
Schneider supports the principle of patient autonomy. But at the same time, he effectively deflates its most unrealistic, and arguably undesirable, pretensions. He sums up his work by observing that "informing our bioethical thinking with an understanding of how the world works will richly reward the effort." His intended audience of physicians, bioethicists, attorneys, and social scientists should agree strongly with this assessment.
Reviewed by Marshall B. Kapp, J.D., M.P.H.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
There are no customer reviews yet.
|
|||
|
Video reviews
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|