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 (13)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, W. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, W. A
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 2, 140-145
© Oxford University Press 2002

Original Paper

Whose autonomy? Which choice? A study of GPs' attitudes towards patient autonomy in the management of low back pain

Wendy A Rogers

Department of General Practice, Flinders University of South Australia, GPO Box 2100, SA 5001, Australia.

Department of General Practice, The University of Edinburgh, 20 West Richmond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9DX, UK.

Background. Respect for patient autonomy is an important ethical principle for medical practitioners; however, previous investigators have reported inconsistent attitudes amongst practitioners towards respect for patient autonomy. This study in empirical ethics used qualitative methods to investigate GPs' attitudes towards respect for patient autonomy in consultations for low back pain.

Objectives. The aim of this study was to explore GPs' attitudes towards respect for patient autonomy by analysing attitudes towards four issues in the management of low back pain which raise ethical and practical dilemmas.

Methods. Participants were 21 GPs selected from general practice in South Australia by stratified, purposive sampling aimed at maximizing diversity. Semi-structured interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analysed using codes developed from the transcripts, with additional theoretical codes. In the analysis, attitudes towards patient autonomy in the four issues were characterized as autonomy-respecting, intermediate or controlling.

Results. The results showed individual inconsistencies in GPs' attitudes towards respect for patient autonomy. For example, the majority of GPs accepted patient autonomy in the use of complementary therapies, but were controlling with regard to the use of analgesics. Attitudes to duration of time off work were spread evenly, whilst controlling attitudes towards use of X-rays were modified by patient requests for X-rays.

Conclusions. These results suggest that GP attitudes towards patient autonomy are modified by ethical and pragmatic factors, and vary depending upon the nature of the issue in question.

Keywords. Decision making, ethics, general practice, GP attitudes, patient autonomy.


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
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
E. Gruppetta
Ethical issues for radiographers: general observations and a pilot qualitative study
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, July 1, 2009; 135(2): 88 - 89.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
B Hofmann and K B Lysdahl
Moral principles and medical practice: the role of patient autonomy in the extensive use of radiological services
J. Med. Ethics, June 1, 2008; 34(6): 446 - 449.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
S. Bremberg, T. Nilstun, V. Kovac, and M. Zwitter
GPs facing reluctant and demanding patients: analysing ethical justifications
Fam. Pract., June 1, 2003; 20(3): 254 - 261.
[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.