Ethics: The Heart of Health Care - a classic ethics text in medical, health and nursing studies - is recommended around the globe for its straightforward introduction to ethical analysis. In this new edition David Seedhouse demonstrates tangibly and graphically how ethics and health care are inextricably bound together, and creates a firm theoretical basis for practical decision-making. He not only clarifies ethics but, with the aid of the acclaimed Ethical Grid, teaches an essential practical skill which can be productively (...) applied in day-to-day health care. This edition, which is even more readable than the first, includes additional case studies and teaching exercises, contains new material on ethical theory and offers two further decision-making tools - The Rings of Uncertainty and the Autonomy Test. The engaging new introduction reveals the genesis of the Ethical Grid, illuminates the intent and argument of the first edition, and explains why the book is needed today as much as ever. Intended for all who work in health care or health studies - indeed for anyone with an interest in health issues - this is a highly original, innovative and accessible work on a subject traditionally regarded as lofty and obscure. It clarifies a wide variety of complex ethical issues and will give the reader fresh inspiration and renewed confidence in dealing with the demands of modern health work. (shrink)

Until about thirty years ago, the extent of disclosure about and consent-seeking for medical interventions was influenced by a beneficence model of professional behaviour. Informed consent shifted attention to a duty to respect the autonomy of patients. The new requirement arrived on the American scene in two separate contexts: for daily practice in 1957, and for clinical study in 1966. A confusing double standard has been established. 'Daily consent' is reviewed, if at all, only in retrospect. Doctors are merely exhorted (...) to obtain informed consent; they often minimise uncertainties about 'best' treatment and they feel duty-bound to provide patients with an unequivocal recommendation for action. 'Study consent' in a clinical trial is reviewed prospectively, and doctors are compelled by regulation to point out that there is insufficient evidence to make a rational choice between two compared treatments. It has been impossible to devise informed consent practices that satisfy, in full, the competing moral imperatives of respect for autonomy, concern for beneficence with emphasis on the value of health, and a vigil for justice. A way must be found to experiment with various discretionary approaches that would strike a realistic balance among competing interests. (shrink)

The following case breaks with tradition by having only one commentary upon it, and that is from the doctor who submitted the case. We invite readers to make their own analysis of his comments, and to respond as appropriate.