Decision Making By, With, and For Patients

Laurence B. McCullough; John H. Coverdale; Frank A. Chervenak

doi:10.1017/9781316841037.003

Chapter 3 - Decision Making By, With, and For Patients

from Section 1 - Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 November 2019

Laurence B. McCullough ,

John H. Coverdale and

Frank A. Chervenak

Show author details

Laurence B. McCullough: Affiliation:
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
John H. Coverdale: Affiliation:
Baylor College of Medicine, Texas
Frank A. Chervenak: Affiliation:
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an ethical framework for decision making by, with, and for patients on a continuum of simple consent, informed consent, assisted decision making, assent, and surrogate decision making.

In clinical practice, innovation, and research, decision making always has the goal of a decision for the patient. Most of the time decision making has the additional goal of a decision by and with the patient. This is the goal for female patients and pregnant patients who have the capacity to participate in decision making, i.e., most patients.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology , pp. 45 - 67

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316841037.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 439: Informed consent. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1): 401–408.Google Scholar

McCullough, LB, Coverdale, JH, Chervenak, FA. Ethical challenges of decision making with pregnant patients who have schizophrenia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 696–702.Google Scholar

Coverdale, JH, Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Bayer, T. Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for the management of the depressed pregnant patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 171: 169–173.CrossRef Google Scholar

White, BC. Competence to Consent. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Grisso, T, Appelbaum, PS. Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Faden, RR, Beauchamp, TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.Google Scholar

Whitney, SN, McGuire, AL, McCullough, LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med 2003; 140: 54–59.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 129–130 (1914).Google Scholar

Lombardo, PA. Phantom tumors and hysterical women: revising our view of the Schloendorff case. J Law Med Ethics 2005; 33: 791–801.Google Scholar

Chervenak, J, McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. Surgery without consent or miscommunication? A new look at a landmark legal case. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212: 586–590.Google Scholar

Wear, S. Informed Consent: Patient Autonomy and Physician Beneficence within Clinical Medicine. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, 1993.Google Scholar

Engel, GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 1977; 196: 129–136.Google Scholar

McCullough, LB. The professional medical ethics model of decision making under conditions of uncertainty. Med Care Rev Res 2013; 70(1 Suppl): 141S–58S.Google Scholar

Kon, AA. The shared decision-making continuum. JAMA 2010; 304: 903–904.Google Scholar

Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. The unlimited rights model of obstetric ethics threatens professionalism: a commentary. BJOG 2017; 124: 1144–1147.Google Scholar

Ecker, J. Minkoff H. Home birth: what are physicians’ ethical obligations when patient choices may carry increased risk? Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 1179–1182.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

McCullough, LB, Wilson, NL, Teasdale, TA, Kolpakchi, AL, Skelly, JR. Mapping personal, familial, and professional values in long-term care decisions. Gerontologist 1993; 33: 324–332.Google Scholar

Blumenthal-Barby, JS, Coverdale, JH, McCullough, LB. A typology and ethical considerations of methods of influence on decision making in patients with psychiatric disorders. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2013; 21: 275–279.Google Scholar

Coverdale, JH, McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA, Bayer, T. Clinical implications and management strategies when depression occurs during pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 36: 424–429.Google Scholar

Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal.3d 285 (1980).Google Scholar

Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. Clinical guides to preventing ethical conflicts between pregnant women and their physicians. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 303–307.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee Opinion Number 617: End-of-life decision making. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 261–267.Google Scholar

Drane, JF. Competency to give informed consent: a model for making clinical assessment. JAMA 1984; 252: 925–927.CrossRef Google Scholar

Winston, ME, Winston, SM, Appelbaum, PS, Rhoden, N. Can a subject consent to a ‘Ulysses Contract’? Hastings Cent Rept 1982; 12: 26–28.Google Scholar

Spellecy, R. Reviving Ulysses contracts. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2003; 13: 373–392.Google Scholar

McCullough, LB, Coverdale, JH, Chervenak, FA. Is pharmacologic research on pregnant women with psychoses ethically permissible? J Perinat Med 2015; 43: 439–444.Google Scholar

Leikin, S. Minors’ assent, consent, or dissent to medical treatment. J Pediatr 1983; 102: 169–176.Google Scholar

Leikin, S. Minors’ assent, consent, or dissent to medical research. IRB 1993; 15: 1–7.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 314–317.Google Scholar

Katz, AL, Webb, SA. Committee on Bioethics. American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 2016; 138(2): e20161485.Google Scholar

Braun, UK, Naik, AD, McCullough, LB. Reconceptualizing the experience of surrogate decision making: reports vs genuine decisions. Ann Fam Med 2009; 7: 249–253.Google Scholar

Braun, UK, McCullough, LB, Beyth, RJ, Wray, NP, Kunik, ME, Morgan, RO. Racial and ethnic differences in the treatment of seriously ill patients: a comparison of African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic veterans. J Natl Med Assoc 2008; 100: 1041–1051.Google Scholar PubMed

Coverdale, JH, Bayer, TL, McCullough, LB, Chervenak, FA. Respecting the autonomy of chronic mentally ill women in decisions about contraception. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1993; 44: 671–674.Google Scholar

Coverdale, JH, McCullough, LB, Molinari, V, Workman, R. Ethically justified clinical strategies for promoting geriatric assent. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006; 21: 151–157.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.