Advertisement

The Transformation and Challenges of the Surgeon–Patient Relationship

  • Piroska K. KoparEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores the transformation and the challenges of the surgeon–patient relationship. It reviews the historical, legal, and bioethical background of the surgical profession and its unique nature as compared to other fields of medicine. Although the foundation of the surgeon–patient relationship has always been, and still remains, the principle of beneficence, the relationship has undergone a dynamic shift that places greater value on both patient autonomy and societal justice than in previous times. The surgeon–patient relationship is complicated by a variety of conflicts of interests and obligations, as well as emerging challenges arising from advancing technology, scarce resources, and a team-based approach to healthcare. Navigating the many demands of our changing professional values may appear difficult, but ultimately a practice built on honesty with our patients, each other, and ourselves can help maintain trust in the surgeon–patient relationship.

Keywords

Surgeon–patient relationship Autonomy Justice Dual agency Honesty 

References

  1. 1.
    Bosk CL. What would you do? Juggling bioethics and ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langerman A, Angelos P, Siegler M. The “call for help”: intraoperative consultation and the surgeon-patient relationship. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(6):1181–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod DA, Goold SD. Maintaining trust in the surgeon-patient relationship: challenges for the new millennium. Arch Surg. 2000;135(1):55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Strebler A, Valentin C. Considering ethics, aesthetics and the dignity of the individual. Cult Med Psychiatry. 2014;38(1):35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Locke J. Two treatises of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schwarze MLBC, Brasel KJ. Surgical “buy-in”: the contractual relationship between surgeons and patients that influences decisions regarding life-supporting therapy. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):843–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah RD, Rasinski KA, Alexander GC. The influence of surrogate decision makers on clinical decision making for critically III adults. J Intensive Care Med. 2015;30(5):278–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tauber AI. Historical and philosophical reflections on patient autonomy. Health Care Anal. 2001;9(3):299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Ramsey P. The patient as person: medical and legal intersections. New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press; 1970.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hurley v Eddingfield, 156 Ind 416, 59 NE 1058 (Ind 1901).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ricks v Budge, 91 Utah 307, 64 P2d 208 (Utah 1937).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mead v Adler, 231 Or App 451, 220 P3d 118 (Or 2009).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blake JH, Schwemmer MK, Sade RM. The patient-surgeon relationship in the cyber era. Communication and information. Thorac Surg Clin. 2012;22(4):531–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plato: Meno.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilks T. Social work and narrative ethics. Br J Soc Work. 35(8):1249–64.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Donchin A, Scully J. Feminist Bioethics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-bioethics/.
  20. 20.
    Haidt J. The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Annas GJ, Grodin MA. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code. Human rights in human experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of bioethics. 4th ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kant I. The metaphysics of morals. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dostoevsky F. The brothers Karmazov. San Francisco: North Point Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gaylin W, Jennings B. The perversion of autonomy: the proper use of coercion and constraints in a liberal society. New York: Free Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gilbar R. Family involvement, independence, and patient autonomy in practice. Med Law Rev. 2011;19(2):192–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dworkin G. The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1971.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Angell M. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3(3):279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tilburt JC. Addressing dual agency: getting specific about the expectations of professionalism. Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(9):29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Frey JJ 3rd. Writing an excuse or educating the patient. Virtual Mentor. 2012;14(1):13–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morreim EH. Fiscal scarcity and the inevitability of bedside budget balancing. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(5):1012–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kavarana MN, Sade RM. Ethical issues in cardiac surgery. Futur Cardiol. 2012;8(3):451–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Morrell ED, Brown BP, Qi R, Drabiak K, Helft PR. The do-not-resuscitate order: associations with advance directives, physician specialty and documentation of discussion 15 years after the Patient Self-Determination Act. J Med Ethics. 2008;34(9):642–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wade NJ, Diana D. Binaural hearing—before and after the stethophone. Acoustics Today. 2008;4(3)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kennedy M. Let me die in your house: cardiac distress and sympathy in nineteenth-century british medicine. Lit Med. 2014;32(1):105–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wilk AS, Platt JE. Measuring physicians’ trust: a scoping review with implications for public policy. Soc Sci Med. 2016;165:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Persad G, Wertheimer A, Emanuel EJ. Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Lancet. 2009;373(9661):423–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Skinner S. Patient-centered care model in IONM: a review and commentary. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;30(2):204–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pellegrini C. Trust: the keystone of the physician-patient relationship. Bull Am Coll Surg. 2017;102(1):58–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    D’Amico TA, McKneally MF, Sade RM. Ethics in cardiothoracic surgery: a survey of surgeons’ views. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(1):11–13.e1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Helft PR, Eckles RE, Torbeck L. Ethics education in surgical residency programs: a review of the literature. J Surg Educ. 2009;66(1):35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Snelgrove R, Ng S, Devon K. Ethics M&Ms: towards a recognition of ethics in everyday practice. J Grad Med Educ. 2016; 8(3):462–4.Google Scholar

Suggested Readings

  1. 1.
    Blake V. When is a patient-physician relationship established? Virtual Mentor. 2012;14(5):403–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ. 2000;321(7272):1300–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Putman MS, Yoon JD, Rasinski KA, Curlin FA. Directive counsel and morally controversial medical decision-making: findings from two national surveys of primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):335–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernat JL, Peterson LM. Patient-centered informed consent in surgical practice. Arch Surg. 2006;141(1):86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burkle CM, Mueller PS, Swetz KM, Hook CC, Keegan MT. Physician perspectives and compliance with patient advance directives: the role external factors play on physician decision making. BMC Med Ethics. 2012;13:31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgical Critical Care, Acute Care and Trauma SurgeryYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations