Ecological preferences and patient autonomy.

IF 3.3 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1136/jme-2024-110432
Sabine Salloch
{"title":"Ecological preferences and patient autonomy.","authors":"Sabine Salloch","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-110432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare systems contribute considerably to worldwide carbon emissions and therefore reinforce the negative health impacts of climate change. Significant attempts to reduce emissions have been made on the macro level of politics and on the institutional level. Less attention has been paid so far to decisions that take place at the micro level of immediate doctor-patient contact. Current bioethical debates discuss potential tensions between 'Green Healthcare' and an orientation towards ethical principles such as promoting patient welfare or respect for patient autonomy. The article addresses this debate from a different angle starting from the premise that at least some patients might have a preference to reduce carbon outputs that are often deeply rooted in their personal value system. Taking different accounts of patient autonomy as a starting point, the article analyses whether such preferences must be respected as being part of patient autonomy. The analysis comes to a positive conclusion but highlights that certain factors such as misinterpretation, lack of understanding or pressure must be carefully considered. In addition, a patient's climate-related preference does not per se justify the choice of treatment but must be integrated into shared decision-making and reconciled with the healthcare professional's expert judgement on the intervention being a legitimate and promising way for reaching certain treatment goals. As a recommendation, empirical research on stakeholders' attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding ecological sustainability in clinical decision-making is needed together with further ethical analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2024-110432","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Healthcare systems contribute considerably to worldwide carbon emissions and therefore reinforce the negative health impacts of climate change. Significant attempts to reduce emissions have been made on the macro level of politics and on the institutional level. Less attention has been paid so far to decisions that take place at the micro level of immediate doctor-patient contact. Current bioethical debates discuss potential tensions between 'Green Healthcare' and an orientation towards ethical principles such as promoting patient welfare or respect for patient autonomy. The article addresses this debate from a different angle starting from the premise that at least some patients might have a preference to reduce carbon outputs that are often deeply rooted in their personal value system. Taking different accounts of patient autonomy as a starting point, the article analyses whether such preferences must be respected as being part of patient autonomy. The analysis comes to a positive conclusion but highlights that certain factors such as misinterpretation, lack of understanding or pressure must be carefully considered. In addition, a patient's climate-related preference does not per se justify the choice of treatment but must be integrated into shared decision-making and reconciled with the healthcare professional's expert judgement on the intervention being a legitimate and promising way for reaching certain treatment goals. As a recommendation, empirical research on stakeholders' attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding ecological sustainability in clinical decision-making is needed together with further ethical analyses.

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
生态偏好和病人自主。
卫生保健系统对全球碳排放有很大贡献,因此加剧了气候变化对健康的负面影响。在宏观政治层面和制度层面都做出了重大的减排努力。迄今为止,人们对医患直接接触这一微观层面的决策关注较少。当前的生物伦理辩论讨论了“绿色医疗”和伦理原则取向之间潜在的紧张关系,如促进患者福利或尊重患者自主权。这篇文章从一个不同的角度解决了这个争论,从一个前提开始,至少一些病人可能倾向于减少碳排放,这往往深深植根于他们的个人价值体系。本文以对患者自主性的不同看法为出发点,分析了这种偏好是否必须作为患者自主性的一部分加以尊重。分析得出了一个积极的结论,但强调了某些因素,如误解,缺乏理解或压力必须仔细考虑。此外,患者与气候相关的偏好本身并不能成为选择治疗的理由,但必须纳入共同决策,并与医疗保健专业人员的专家判断相协调,即干预是实现某些治疗目标的合法和有希望的方式。作为建议,需要对利益相关者在临床决策中对生态可持续性的态度、知识和实践进行实证研究,并进行进一步的伦理分析。
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
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
期刊最新文献
Ethics in digital phenotyping: considerations regarding Alzheimer's disease, speech and artificial intelligence. Jecker and Atuire's African reflections on being a person: more welcome non-western thought about moral status. How (not) to define 'assisted dying'. Seeking consensus on dilemmas related to euthanasia in dementia based on an advance directive: a Delphi study from a medical, ethical and legal perspective. Generational smoking bans: inegalitarian without disadvantage?
×
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