Objective: Contemporary ethical accounts of the patient-provider relationship emphasise respect for patient autonomy and shared decision making. We sought to examine the relative influence of involvement in decisions, confidence and trust in providers, and treatment with respect and dignity on patients’ evaluations of their hospital care.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Setting: Fifty one hospitals in Massachusetts.Participants: Stratified random sample of adults discharged from a medical, surgical, or maternity hospitalisation between January and March, 1998. Twelve thousand six hundred and eighty survey recipients responded.Main outcome (...) measure: Respondent would definitely be willing to recommend the hospital to family and friends.Results: In a logistic regression analysis, treatment with respect and dignity 3.4, 99% confidence interval 2.8 to 4.2) and confidence and trust in providers were more strongly associated with willingness to recommend than having enough involvement in decisions . Courtesy and availability of staff , continuity and transition , attention to physical comfort , and coordination of care were also significantly associated with willingness to recommend.Conclusions: Confidence and trust in providers and treatment with respect and dignity are more closely associated with patients’ overall evaluations of their hospitals than adequate involvement in decisions. These findings challenge a narrow emphasis on patient autonomy and shared decision making, while arguing for increased attention to trust and respect in ethical models of health care. (shrink)

We find our way in the world partly by means of the discriminatory power of our emotions. The gut sense that something is repugnant or unsavory—the sort of feeling that many now have about various forms of biotechnology—sometimes turns out to be rooted in articulable and legitimate objections, which with time can be spelled out, weighed, and either endorsed or dismissed. But we ought not dismiss the emotional response at the outset as “mere feeling.”.

Public discussion of new medical trials is desirable, but not moment‐by‐moment disclosure of patients' ups and down. Nor is such disclosure necessary: the public is not entitled to all information about a trial as soon as it is available. What should be given the press, and what withheld, cannot be decided without appreciating the surprising number and intricate interrelations of the parties' needs and interests.

This new edition of Law and Medical Ethics continues to chart the ever-widening field that the topics cover. The interplay between the health caring professions and the public during the period intervening since the last edition has, perhaps, been mainly dominated by wide-ranging changes in the administration of the National Health Service and of the professions themselves but these have been paralleled by important developments in medical jurisprudence.

ABSTRACT An American surgical team has announced its intention to perform the first human facial transplantation. The team has, however, invited further analysis of the ethical issues before it proceeds and in this paper we take up that challenge in seeking to frame the debate with a particular focus on the recipients of the transplant. We address seven related areas of concern and identify numerous questions that require answers or, perhaps, better answers. We start by examining the nature of the (...) procedure and its intended benefits, why the procedure is being developed, and whether or not this should be viewed as experimental. Having concluded that this is experimental in nature, we then consider the broad question, who is the patient? Here we perceive difficulties in terms of the autonomy of the recipient, the unpredictable effects of receiving the transplant, and the role and influence of society. We conclude by asking whether the question should be ‘whether or not?’ rather than ‘when?’, particularly while the risks of losing face appear to far outweigh the likelihood of gaining face. (shrink)