Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bremberg, S.
Right arrow Articles by Nilstun, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bremberg, S.
Right arrow Articles by Nilstun, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 17, No. 2, 124-128
© Oxford University Press 2000

Patients' autonomy and medical benefit: ethical reasoning among GPs

Stefan Bremberg and Tore Nilstuna

Läkargrupp Söder, Helsingborg and
a Department of Medical Ethics, Lund University, Sweden.

Background. During the last decades, the traditional role of GPs as decision-makers for their patients has been questioned.

Objectives. The aim of this study was to identify and discuss how GPs deal with and how they reason in situations where there is a possible tension between the obligation to respect the patients' right to self-determination and the obligation to promote their health.

Methods. One hundred and twenty randomly selected Swedish GPs received a mailed questionnaire with two vignettes, one describing a patient reluctant to have a medically motivated intervention, the other describing a patient requesting a medically doubtful intervention. Forty seven of these GPs subsequently were interviewed by telephone.

Results. With regard to the first vignette, approximately two-thirds of respondents to the questionnaire (n = 82) answered that they would not accept the patient's reluctance. Older GPs were somewhat more inclined to try to persuade the patient to come to their surgery than were younger colleagues. In the interview, most respondents answered that the right to self-determination ought to be given priority, but the obligation to promote health had a greater influence on their behaviour. Regarding the second vignette, two-thirds of respondents to the questionnaire answered that they would not give way to the patient's request for intervention. Younger GPs said "No" more often than did their older colleagues. In the interviews, justifications for their response referred to medical benefit, uneasy patients, self-protection and justice.

Conclusion. When facing such conflicts in everyday practice, the ethical codes of medicine are often too categorical to give any guidance. The situational ideal of covenant would be more helpful, and ought to be emphasized by medical teachers as well as tutoring older colleagues.

Keywords. Autonomy, decision-making, ethics, general practice, medical benefit.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
AM J HOSP PALLIAT CAREHome page
I. Agren Bolmsjo, T. Nilstun, and R. LoFmark
From Cure to Palliation: Agreement, Timing, and Decision Making Within the Staff
American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, November 1, 2007; 24(5): 366 - 370.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J. Med. EthicsHome page
S A Hurst, S C Hull, G DuVal, and M Danis
How physicians face ethical difficulties: a qualitative analysis
J. Med. Ethics, January 1, 2005; 31(1): 7 - 14.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.