Lelie A
Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Catholic University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. annique.lelie@alg/tf.wau.nl
Patient Educ Couns. 2000 Jan;39(1):81-9. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(99)00093-2.
Shared decision-making is considered an important ideal for physician-patient interaction. The ideal states that health-related values should be discussed together. It raises two questions: (a) for which decisions is the ideal of shared decision-making relevant? (b) Which aspects of treatment should be discussed? The nephrological practice under consideration in this article answers question (a) as follows: decisions about the type of dialysis are shared decisions, while decisions about the moment to start dialysis are medical decisions that should be taken by nephrologists. This situation can be criticized as important health-related values play a role in decisions about starting dialysis. Question (b) is answered in the nephrological practice under consideration by discussing at least all important health-related aspects that raise uncertainty about its worth for a patient. This approach to question (b) is morally and practically defensible.
共同决策被视为医患互动的一个重要理想状态。该理想状态表明,与健康相关的价值观应该共同探讨。这引发了两个问题:(a)共同决策的理想状态适用于哪些决策?(b)应该讨论治疗的哪些方面?本文所讨论的肾脏病学实践对问题(a)的回答如下:关于透析类型的决策是共同决策,而关于开始透析时机的决策则是应由肾脏病学家做出的医疗决策。这种情况可能会受到批评,因为与健康相关的重要价值观在开始透析的决策中发挥着作用。在所讨论的肾脏病学实践中,通过至少讨论所有对患者而言其价值存在不确定性的重要健康相关方面来回答问题(b)。这种回答问题(b)的方法在道德和实践上都是站得住脚的。