“Nudge” in the clinical consultation – an acceptable form of medical paternalism?

BMC Medical Ethics

Richard Sullivan²  Joanna Davies¹  Ajay Aggarwal³ 

[1]Department of Palliative Care, Guys & St Thomas’ NHS Trust, Guys Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, England

[2]Department of Research Oncology, King’s Institute of Cancer Policy, Guys Hospital, 3rd Floor Bermondsey Wing, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, England

[3]London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, England

关键词: Medical consultation;    Shared decision making;    Framing;    Communication;    Libertarian paternalism;    Nudge;   

Others  :  799548
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-31

 received in 2013-05-28, accepted in 2014-04-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Libertarian paternalism is a concept derived from cognitive psychology and behavioural science. It is behind policies that frame information in such a way as to encourage individuals to make choices which are in their best interests, while maintaining their freedom of choice. Clinicians may view their clinical consultations as far removed from the realms of cognitive psychology but on closer examination there are a number of striking similarities.

Discussion

Evidence has shown that decision making is prone to bias and not necessarily rational or logical, particularly during ill health. Clinicians will usually have an opinion about what course of action represents the patient’s best interests and thus may “frame” information in a way which “nudges” patients into making choices which are considered likely to maximise their welfare. This may be viewed as interfering with patient autonomy and constitute medical paternalism and appear in direct opposition to the tenets of modern practice. However, we argue that clinicians have a responsibility to try and correct “reasoning failure” in patients. Some compromise between patient autonomy and medical paternalism is justified on these grounds and transparency of how these techniques may be used should be promoted.

Summary

Overall the extremes of autonomy and paternalism are not compatible in a responsive, responsible and moral health care environment, and thus some compromise of these values is unavoidable. Nudge techniques are widely used in policy making and we demonstrate how they can be applied in shared medical decision making. Whether or not this is ethically sound is a matter of continued debate but health care professionals cannot avoid the fact they are likely to be using nudge within clinical consultations. Acknowledgment of this will lead to greater self-awareness, reflection and provide further avenues for debate on the art and science of clinical communication.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Aggarwal et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Thaler RH, Sunstein CR: Libertarian paternalism. Am Econ Rev 2003, 93(2):175-179.
• [2]Camerer C, Loewenstein G, Rabin M, Russell Sage F: Advances in behavioral economics. Oxford: Princeton University Press; 2004.
• [3]Dworkin G: Paternalism. Monist 1972, 56(1):64.
• [4]Sunstein CR, Thaler RH: Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. U Chicago Law Rev 2003, 70(4):1159-1202.
• [5]Tversky A, Kahneman D: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974, 185(4157):1124-1131.
• [6]Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D: Understanding patients’ decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA 1993, 270(1):72-76.
• [7]Merz JF, Fischhoff B: Informed consent does not mean rational consent. Cognitive limitations on decision-making. J Legal Med 1990, 11(3):321-350.
• [8]Gaskin DJ, Kong J, Meropol NJ, Yabroff KR, Weaver C, Schulman KA: Treatment choices by seriously ill patients: the health stock risk adjustment model. Med Decis Making 1998, 18(1):84-94.
• [9]Kahneman D, Tversky A: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47(2):263-291.
• [10]Armstrong D: The doctor patient relationship: 1930-1980. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1982.
• [11]Cassileth BR, Soloway MS, Vogelzang NJ, Schellhammer PS, Seidmon EJ, Hait HI, Kennealey GT: Patients’ choice of treatment in stage D prostate cancer. Urology 1989, 33(5 Suppl):57-62.
• [12]Politi MC, Studts JL, Hayslip JW: Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know? Oncologist 2012, 17(1):91-100.
• [13]Arkes HR, Hammond KR: Judgment and decision making: an interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
• [14]Schwartz B: The paradox of choice: why more is less. New York: HarperCollins; 2004.
• [15]Boyd NF, Sutherland HJ, Heasman KZ, Tritchler DL, Cummings BJ: Whose utilities for decision analysis? Med Decis Making 1990, 10(1):58-67.
• [16]Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T: Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit 2002, 40(2):351.
• [17]Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA: Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med 2007, 357(13):1340-1344.
• [18]Loewenstein G, Brennan T, Volpp KG: Asymmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors. JAMA 2007, 298(20):2415-2417.
• [19]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE): CG80 early and locally advanced breast cancer: full guideline. 2009. http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG80/Guidance/pdf/English webcite
• [20]Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, Canon JL, Delozier T, Serin D, Symann M, Kerbrat P, Soulie P, Eichler F, Viens P, Monnier A, Vindevoghel A, Campone M, Goudier M, Bonneterre J, Ferrero J, Martin A, Genève J, Asselain B: Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24(36):5664-5671.
• [21]Tversky A, Kahneman D: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211(4481):453-458.
• [22]Inglis S, Farnill D: The effects of providing preoperative statistical anaesthetic-risk information. Anaesth Intensive Care 1993, 21(6):799-805.
• [23]Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, Rothman AJ, Moyer A, Beauvais J, Epel E: The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol 1995, 14(2):178-184.
• [24]Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM: The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med 1993, 8(10):543-548.
• [25]Thaler RH, Sunstein CR: Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press; 2008.
• [26]Ashcroft RE: Personal financial incentives in health promotion: where do they fit in an ethic of autonomy? Health Expect 2011, 14(2):191-200.
• [27]Bovens L: The ethics of nudge. In Preference change: approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology edn. Edited by Grune-Yanoff T, Hansson SO. Berlin and New York: Springer, Theory and Decision Library A; 2009.
• [28]Johnson EJ, Goldstein D: Medicine. Do defaults save lives? Science (New York, NY) 2003, 302(5649):1338-1339.
• [29]Wilkinson T: Nudging and manipulation. Polit Stud 2013, 61(2):341-355.
• [30]Komrad MS: A defence of medical paternalism: maximising patients’ autonomy. J Med Ethics 1983, 9(1):38-44.
• [31]Dyer C: Judge was wrong to insist doctors should give “burdensome” treatment to minimally conscious patient, court rules. BMJ 2013, 346:f1455.
• [32]General Medical Council (GMC): Good medical practice: explanatory guidance. 2013. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance.asp webcite
• [33]Bornstein BH, Emler AC: Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision making biases. J Eval Clin Pract 2001, 7(2):97-107.
• [34]Jenkins V, Fallowfield L, Saul J: Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres. Br J Cancer 2001, 84(1):48-51.
• [35]Wright EB, Holcombe C, Salmon P: Doctors’ communication of trust, care, and respect in breast cancer: qualitative study. BMJ 2004, 328(7444):864.
• [36]Henman MJ, Butow PN, Brown RF, Boyle F, Tattersall MH: Lay constructions of decision-making in cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2002, 11(4):295-306.
• [37]Leydon GM, Boulton M, Moynihan C, Jones A, Mossman J, Boudioni M, McPherson K: Cancer patients’ information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study. BMJ 2000, 320(7239):909-913.
• [38]Clark JA, Wray NP, Ashton CM: Living with treatment decisions: regrets and quality of life among men treated for metastatic prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19(1):72-80.
• [39]Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O’Neil J, Bilodeau B, Watson P, Mueller B: Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 1997, 277(18):1485-1492.
• [40]Maynard DW: Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. Am J Sociol 1991, 97(2):448-495.
• [41]Leydon GM: ‘Yours is potentially serious but most of these are cured’: optimistic communication in UK outpatient oncology consultations. Psycho-Oncology 2008, 17(11):1081-1088.
• [42]Salmon P: The work of clinical communication in cancer care. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, Hampshire; 2010.