Philosophical and Ethical Underpinnings of the Medical Decision-Making Process: A Focus on Patient Values and Preferences.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Annals of Pharmacotherapy Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1177/10600280241289133
Brian L Erstad
{"title":"Philosophical and Ethical Underpinnings of the Medical Decision-Making Process: A Focus on Patient Values and Preferences.","authors":"Brian L Erstad","doi":"10.1177/10600280241289133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current clinical practice is based on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) often serving as a source of information for the medical decision-making process. There are philosophical and ethical tenets underlying this process including those pertaining to patient values and preferences. Despite their importance, these tenets may receive less attention than the empirically derived recommendations in CPGs based on the principles of EBM. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of the medical decision-making process with a focus on patient values and preferences so pharmacists and other clinicians can appreciate the interplay between science, philosophy and ethics when providing patient- or person-centered care. Appreciation of these discussions should help practitioners to recognize the limitations and challenges when attempting to incorporate population-based evidence into a patient-specific medical decision-making process that often necessitates reconciliation and negotiation between the clinician and patient when striving to provide optimal care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7933,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","volume":" ","pages":"10600280241289133"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241289133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current clinical practice is based on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) with clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) often serving as a source of information for the medical decision-making process. There are philosophical and ethical tenets underlying this process including those pertaining to patient values and preferences. Despite their importance, these tenets may receive less attention than the empirically derived recommendations in CPGs based on the principles of EBM. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of the medical decision-making process with a focus on patient values and preferences so pharmacists and other clinicians can appreciate the interplay between science, philosophy and ethics when providing patient- or person-centered care. Appreciation of these discussions should help practitioners to recognize the limitations and challenges when attempting to incorporate population-based evidence into a patient-specific medical decision-making process that often necessitates reconciliation and negotiation between the clinician and patient when striving to provide optimal care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗决策过程的哲学和伦理基础:关注病人的价值观和偏好。
目前的临床实践以循证医学(EBM)原则为基础,临床实践指南(CPG)通常是医疗决策过程的信息来源。这一过程蕴含着哲学和伦理原则,包括与患者价值观和偏好相关的原则。尽管这些原则非常重要,但与基于 EBM 原则的经验性建议相比,这些原则受到的关注可能较少。本文旨在概述医疗决策过程的哲学和伦理学基础,重点关注患者的价值观和偏好,以便药剂师和其他临床医师在提供以患者或个人为中心的护理时,能够理解科学、哲学和伦理学之间的相互作用。了解这些讨论应有助于从业人员认识到在尝试将基于人群的证据纳入特定患者的医疗决策过程时所面临的局限性和挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Pharmacotherapy (AOP) is a peer-reviewed journal that advances pharmacotherapy throughout the world by publishing high-quality research and review articles to achieve the most desired health outcomes.The articles provide cutting-edge information about the most efficient, safe and cost-effective pharmacotherapy for the treatment and prevention of various illnesses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 14 days
期刊最新文献
Real-Time Use of SGLT2i Verified in Pre-dialysis: The RSVP Cross-sectional Study. A Case of Angioedema to Oral Doxycycline and Cross-Reactivity to Minocycline. Exploring the Link Between Exogenous Thyroid Hormones and Dementia Symptoms: A Real-World Disproportionality Analysis of FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Fentanyl Levels May Be Unchanged With Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Low-Dose Valganciclovir Prophylaxis Against Cytomegalovirus in Intermediate-Risk Liver and Dual-Abdominal Transplant Recipients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1