Paternalism, autonomy and reciprocity: ethical perspectives in encounters with patients in psychiatric in-patient care

BMC Medical Ethics

Ingemar Engström²  Karin Engström¹  Veikko Pelto-Piri² 

[1] Department of Child and Youth Studies, Stockholm University, Frescati Hagväg 24, SE 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden;School of Health and Medical Sciences, Örebro University, SE 701 82, Örebro, Sweden

关键词: Ethical issues;    Ethical considerations;    Diary method;    Qualitative theory-guided content analysis;    Reciprocity;    Autonomy;    Paternalism;    Psychiatric care;    Staff;   

Others  :  799631
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-14-49

 received in 2012-08-02, accepted in 2013-11-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Psychiatric staff members have the power to decide the options that frame encounters with patients. Intentional as well as unintentional framing can have a crucial impact on patients’ opportunities to be heard and participate in the process. We identified three dominant ethical perspectives in the normative medical ethics literature concerning how doctors and other staff members should frame interactions in relation to patients; paternalism, autonomy and reciprocity. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse statements describing real work situations and ethical reflections made by staff members in relation to three central perspectives in medical ethics; paternalism, autonomy and reciprocity.

Methods

All staff members involved with patients in seven adult psychiatric and six child and adolescent psychiatric clinics were given the opportunity to freely describe ethical considerations in their work by keeping an ethical diary over the course of one week and 173 persons handed in their diaries. Qualitative theory-guided content analysis was used to provide a description of staff encounters with patients and in what way these encounters were consistent with, or contrary to, the three perspectives.

Results

The majority of the statements could be attributed to the perspective of paternalism and several to autonomy. Only a few statements could be attributed to reciprocity, most of which concerned staff members acting contrary to the perspective. The result is presented as three perspectives containing eight values.

•Paternalism; 1) promoting and restoring the health of the patient, 2) providing good care and 3) assuming responsibility.

•Autonomy; 1) respecting the patient’s right to self-determination and information, 2) respecting the patient’s integrity and 3) protecting human rights.

•Reciprocity; 1) involving patients in the planning and implementation of their care and 2) building trust between staff and patients.

Conclusions

Paternalism clearly appeared to be the dominant perspective among the participants, but there was also awareness of patients’ right to autonomy. Despite a normative trend towards reciprocity in psychiatry throughout the Western world, identifying it proved difficult in this study. This should be borne in mind by clinics when considering the need for ethical education, training and supervision.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Pelto-Piri et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Fulford KWM: Ten principles of values-based medicine. In The philosophy of psychiatry: a companion. Edited by Radden J. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004:205-234.
• [2]Thorton T: Radical liberal values based practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2011, 17:988-991.
• [3]Sandman L, Munthe C: Shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Theor Med Bioeth 2009, 30:289-310.
• [4]Engström K: Delaktighet under tvång. Om ungdomars erfarenhet i barn- och ungdomspsykiatrisk slutenvård. [Participation under coercion. On young people’s experiences in child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient care. In Swedish]. PhD Thesis. Örebro: Örebro University; 2008.
• [5]The Hippocratic Oath. [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html webcite]
• [6]Charles CA, Gafni A, Whelan T: Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999, 49:651-661.
• [7]Gillon R: Ethics needs principles–four can encompass the rest–and respect for autonomy should be “first among equals”. J Med Ethics 2003, 29:307-312.
• [8]International code of medical ethics. [http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c8/ webcite]
• [9]Madrid declaration. [http://www.wpanet.org/detail.php?section_id=5&content_id=48 webcite]
• [10]World Association of Social Psychiatry: Kobe Declaration. Kobe, October. 2004.
• [11]Beauchamp TL, Childress JF: Principles of biomedical ethics. 6th edition. New York: Oxford Univ Press; 2003.
• [12]Sandman L, Granger BB, Ekman I, Munthe C: Adherence, shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Med Health Care Philos 2011., 14
• [13]Janeway E: Powers of the weak. New Your: Knopf; 1980.
• [14]Armstrong D: The contribution of sociology to psychiatry: a review. J R Soc Med 1988, 81:161-163.
• [15]Fulford KWM, Thornton T, Graham G: Oxford textbook of philosophy and psychiatry. UK: Oxford University Press; 2007.
• [16]Hawaii declaration. [http://www.wpanet.org/detail.php?section_id=5&content_id=27 webcite]
• [17]Radden J: Psychiatric ethics. Bioethics 2002, 6:397-411.
• [18]Gaylin W, Jennings B: The perversion of autonomy. Coercion and constraints in a liberal society. Washington DC: Georgtown univ press; 2003.
• [19]Sandman L, Munthe C: Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Health Care Anal 2009, 17:289-310.
• [20]Hsieh HF, Shannon SE: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005, 15:1277-1288.
• [21]Krippendorff K: Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage; 2004.
• [22]Ponterotto JG: Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the qualitative research concept “thick description”. TQR 2006, 11:538-549.
• [23]The National Board of Health and Welfare: Innehållet i den psykiatriska tvångsvården, [in Swedish]. Article no 2009-126-81. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen; 2009.
• [24]Lützén K: Subtle coercion in psychiatric practice. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 1998, 5:101-107.
• [25]Parliament of the United Kingdom: Mental Health Act 2007. London; 2007.
• [26]The Swedish parliament: Compulsory Mental Care Act. SFS (1128). [The Compulsory Psychiatric Care Act. In Swedish]. Stockholm; 1991.
• [27]Katsakou C, Priebe S: Patient’s experiences of involuntary hospital admission and treatment: a review of qualitative studies. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2007, 16:172-178.
• [28]Katsakou C, Marougka S, Garabette J, Rost F, Yeeles K, Priebe S: Why do some voluntary patients feel coerced into hospitalisation? A mixed-methods study. Psychiatry Res 2011, 187(1–2):275-282.
• [29]Widdershoven G, Van Der Scheer L: Theory and methodology of empirical ethics: a pragmatic hermeneutic perspective. In Empirical ethics in psychiatry. Edited by Widdershoven G, Hope T, McMillan J, Van Der Scheer L. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press; 2008:23-36.