Beyond Shared Decision Making: An Expanded Typology of Medical Decisions

Simon N. Whitney, Margaret Holmes-Rovner, Howard Brody, Carl Schneider, Laurence B. McCullough, Robert J. Volk and Amy L. McGuire
Additional contact information
Simon N. Whitney: Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics, Houston, TX, swhitney@bcm.edu
Margaret Holmes-Rovner: Health Services Research, Michigan State University, Center for Ethics & Humanities in the Life Sciences, E. Lansing
Howard Brody: Family Medicine, Institute for the Medical Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
Carl Schneider: University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor
Laurence B. McCullough: Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX
Robert J. Volk: Department of Family and Community Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics, Houston, TX
Amy L. McGuire: Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Medical Decision Making, 2008, vol. 28, issue 5, 699-705

Abstract: The most popular current models of medical decision making, identified by names such as shared decision making, informed decision making, and evidence-based patient choice, portray an empowered patient actively involved in his or her medical choices and generally assume that patient and physician reach agreement. These models are limited to a specific type of decision (in which there is more than one choice) and a specific process (in which agreement is reached). The authors extend the model of medical decision making beyond shared decisions in 2 dimensions. First, the authors incorporate a class of medical decisions in which there is only one medically reasonable treatment option, such as the removal of a primary melanoma. Patient preferences are irrelevant to whether or not the melanoma should be removed, so there is no treatment choice in which the patient can share. When there is only one realistic treatment option, the clinician's job is not to offer alternatives but to explain why there is only one viable choice and move the decision-making process forward. The physician does not thereby abridge the patient's autonomy; rather, the disease process itself constrains both patient and physician. Second, the authors include decisions in which patient and physician do not reach agreement. Sometimes the patient insists on a particular treatment and the physician reluctantly yields, sometimes it is the other way around, but disagreement is commonplace in clinical medicine and its presence deserves inclusion in the way we think about medical decisions. Conflict resolution requires acknowledging the potential for conflict.

Keywords: Key words: decision making; decision theory; informed consent; treatment refusal; medical ethics; theoretical models; patient participation; physician-patient relations. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08318465 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:699-705

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08318465

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().