BackgroundEvaluation of decision-making capacity to consent to medical treatment has proved to be difficult in patients with dementia. Studies showed that physicians are often insufficiently trained in the evaluation of decision-making capacity. In this study, we present findings from a secondary analysis of a qualitative interviews with physicians. These interviews were initially used to assess usability of an instrument for the evaluation of decision-making capacity. By looking at difficult cases of decision-making capacity evaluation in patients with dementia, we provide recommendations (...) for such evaluations in clinical practice.MethodsWe used thematic coding to analyse physicians’ narratives of problematic decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia to uncover challenging issues of decision-making capacity evaluation.ResultsIn this study, decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia were mainly perceived as challenging when they pertained to treatment refusals and treatment unrelated circumstances, such as psychiatric consultation, advance directives, and new living arrangements. Furthermore, the physicians reported training needs regarding situation-independent challenges with decision-making capacity evaluation.ConclusionsUpon further examining self-reported training needs and challenging cases, we have developed recommendations to improve decision-making capacity evaluations in clinical practice. In these recommendations, we argue that being able to evaluate decision-making capacity is an integral part of the informed consent process. (shrink)

The fiduciary nature of the patient-physician relationship requires clinicians to act in the best interest of their patients. Patients are vulnerable due to their health status and lack of medical knowledge, which makes them dependent on the clinicians’ expertise. Competent patients, however, may reject the recommendations of their physician, either refusing beneficial medical interventions or procedures based on their personal views that do not match the perceived medical indication. In some instances, the patients’ refusal may jeopardize their health or life (...) but also compromise the clinician’s moral responsibility to promote the patient’s best interests. In other words, health professionals have to deal with patients whose behavior and healthcare decisions seem counterproductive for their health, or even deteriorate it, because of lack of knowledge, bad habits or bias without being the patients’ free voluntary choice. The moral dilemma centers on issues surrounding the limits of the patient’s autonomy (rights) and the clinician’s role to promote the well-being of the patient (duties). In this paper we argue that (1) the use of manipulative strategies, albeit considered beneficent, defeats the purpose of patient education and therefore should be rejected; and (2) the appropriate strategy is to empower patients through patient education which enhances their autonomy and encourages them to become full healthcare partners as opposed to objects of clinical intervention or entities whose values or attitudes need to be shaped and changed through education. First, we provide a working definition of the concept of patient education and a brief historical overview of its origin. Second, we examine the nature of the patient-physician relationship in order to delineate its boundaries, essential for understanding the role of education in the clinical context. Third, we argue that patient education should promote self-rebiasing, enhance autonomy, and empower patients to determine their therapeutic goals. Finally, we develop a moral framework for patient education. (shrink)

Der Beitrag analysiert Techniken öffentlicher Gesundheitskommunikation und skizziert im Ausblick Minimalbedingungen für ihre ethische Vertretbarkeit. Dazu wird erstens an einem aktuellen Beispiel veranschaulicht, wie mittels Text und Bild die Öffentlichkeit überzeugt werden soll, ein bestimmtes Gesundheitsverhalten an den Tag zu legen. Zweitens werden anhand der internationalen Ethik-Debatte fünf Grundtypen von Techniken in der Gesundheitskommunikation (Information, Argumentation, Persuasion, Manipulation und Zwang) rekonstruiert und entlang von Mittel, Zweck, Folgen für Adressaten sowie Implikationen für Autonomie aus ethischer Sicht unterschieden. Am besonders ambivalenten Beispiel (...) der Persuasion wird dann drittens diskutiert, welche ethischen Fallstricke es bei Gesundheitskommunikation zu bedenken gibt. Schließlich zeigen wir argumentativ auf, dass es in sensiblen bioethischen Themenfeldern wichtig ist, zwischen verschiedenen Techniken der Gesundheitskommunikation analytisch zu differenzieren. Ziel sollte die Ermöglichung einer fairen und transparenten Diskussion für breite Bevölkerungsgruppen sein. (shrink)