Advertisement

The Surgical Decision-Making Process: Different Ethical Approaches

  • Christian J. VerclerEmail author
  • Sagar S. Deshpande
Chapter

Abstract

The realities of surgical decision making entail some limits on unbridled autonomy, which can resemble paternalism. The received tradition in bioethics considers shared decision making the gold standard in determining what course of action a patient should take. This chapter examines the various forms of patient–surgeon relationships related to decision making, describes ideal forms of shared decision making, and discusses different approaches in emergent, urgent, and elective clinical situations. The use of decision aids, second opinions, and referrals, as well as fully engaged multidisciplinary discussions, can help the surgeon retain the moral agency that is a requisite component of excellence in surgical practice without devolving into paternalism. The goal is to perform the right operation on the right patient at the right time for the right reasons.

Keywords

Shared decision making Informed consent Assent Surgical buy-in Paternalism Decision aids Coercion 

References

  1. 1.
    Stain SC. Informed surgical consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;222(4):717–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York: OUP; 1998. p. xiv.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2003;140:54–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brock DW. The ideal of shared decision making. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1991;1(1):28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kelly ML, Sulmasy DP, Weil RL. Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage and the challenge of surgical decision making: a review. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;45(5):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 2011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring the discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dworkin G. Paternalism. In: Sartorius R, editor. Paternalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987. p. 19–34.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267:2221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fowler FJ Jr, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR. Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:136–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    International patient decision aids standards collaboration. Criteria for judging the quality of patient decision aids. 2005. www.ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_checklist.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Kuehn BM. States explore shared decision making. JAMA. 2009;301(24):2539–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    University of Washington. Shared decision making project at the University of Washington. 2009. http://depts.washington.edu/shareddm/waleg.
  17. 17.
    Fowler FF Jr, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR. Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(3):136–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF, et al. Can women with early-stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(4):519–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mattox KL, Engelhardt HT Jr. Emergency patients: serious moral choices with limited time, information, and patient participation. In: McCullough LB, Jones JW, Brody BA, editors. Surgical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 78–96.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shuman AG. Contemplating resectability. Hastings Cent Rep. 2017;47:3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boss EF, Mehta N, Ngarajan N, et al. Shared decision-making and choice for elective surgical care: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(3):405–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwarze ML, Bradley CT, Brasel KJ. Surgical “buy-in”: the contractual relationship between surgeons and patients that influences decisions made regarding life-supporting therapy. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):843–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nabozny MJ, Kruser JM, Steffens NM, Pecanec KE, Brasel KJ, et al. Patient reported limitations to surgical buy-in: a qualitative study of patients facing high risk surgery. Ann Surg. 2017;265:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ross LF, Glannon W, Gottlieb LJ, Thistlethwaite JR Jr. Different standards are not double standards: all elective surgical patients are not alike. J Clin Ethics. 2012;23(2):118–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCullough LB, Jones JW, Brody BA, editors. Surgical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 91.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wicclair MR, White DB. Surgeons, intensivists, and the discretion to refuse requested treatments. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(5):33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):314–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20161484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mill JS. On liberty. In: John Stuart Mill, on liberty and utilitarianism. New York: Bantam Books; 1993. p. 12.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Diekema DS. Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention. Theor Med Bioethics. 2004;25(4):243–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ranganathan K, Vercler CJ, Warschausky SA, MacEachern MP, Buchman SR, Waljee JF. Comparative effectiveness studies examining patient-reported outcomes among children with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Center for Bioethics & Social Sciences in Medicine, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.University of Michigan Medical SchoolAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations