Book contents
- Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Chapter 1 Professional Ethics in Medicine
- Chapter 2 Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Chapter 3 Decision Making By, With, and For Patients
- Chapter 4 Confidentiality
- Chapter 5 Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment
- Section 2 Pedagogy of Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Section 3 Professionally Responsible Clinical Practice
- Section 4 Professionally Responsible Leadership
- Section 5 Professionally Responsible Innovation and Research
- Section 6 Professionally Responsible Health Policy and Advocacy
- Glossary of Key Concepts
- Index
- References
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
Book contents
- Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Chapter 1 Professional Ethics in Medicine
- Chapter 2 Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Chapter 3 Decision Making By, With, and For Patients
- Chapter 4 Confidentiality
- Chapter 5 Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment
- Section 2 Pedagogy of Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Section 3 Professionally Responsible Clinical Practice
- Section 4 Professionally Responsible Leadership
- Section 5 Professionally Responsible Innovation and Research
- Section 6 Professionally Responsible Health Policy and Advocacy
- Glossary of Key Concepts
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology , pp. 45 - 67Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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