Hastings Cent Rep. 2018 Mar;48(2):33-39. doi: 10.1002/hast.837.
Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein define a nudge as "any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives." Much has been written about the ethics of nudging competent adult patients. Less has been written about the ethics of nudging surrogates' decision-making and how the ethical considerations and arguments in that context might differ. Even less has been written about nudging surrogate decision-making in the context of pediatrics, despite fundamental differences that exist between the pediatric and adult contexts. Yet, as the field of behavioral economics matures and its insights become more established and well-known, nudges will become more crafted, sophisticated, intentional, and targeted. Thus, the time is now for reflection and ethical analysis regarding the appropriateness of nudges in pediatrics. We argue that there is an even stronger ethical justification for nudging in parental decision-making than with competent adult patients deciding for themselves. We give three main reasons in support of this: (1) child patients do not have autonomy that can be violated (a concern with some nudges), and nudging need not violate parental decision-making authority; (2) nudging can help fulfill pediatric clinicians' obligations to ensure parental decisions are in the child's interests, particularly in contexts where there is high certainty that a recommended intervention is low risk and of high benefit; and (3) nudging can relieve parents' decisional burden regarding what is best for their child, particularly with decisions that have implications for public health.
理查德·泰勒和卡斯·桑斯坦将“推动”定义为“改变人们行为的选择架构的任何方面,这种改变是可预测的,不会禁止任何选项,也不会显著改变他们的经济激励。”关于推动有能力的成年患者做出决策的伦理问题已经有很多讨论。关于推动代理人的决策以及在这种情况下伦理考虑和论点可能有何不同的讨论则较少。关于在儿科背景下推动代理人决策的讨论就更少了,尽管儿科和成人环境之间存在着根本的区别。然而,随着行为经济学领域的成熟及其观点变得更加确立和广为人知,推动将变得更加精心设计、复杂、有针对性。因此,现在是时候对儿科领域的推动是否恰当进行反思和伦理分析了。我们认为,在父母做出决策方面,推动比有能力的成年患者为自己做决策更有充分的伦理理由。我们提出了三个主要理由来支持这一点:(1)儿童患者没有可以被侵犯的自主权(这是一些推动措施所关注的问题),并且推动不一定会侵犯父母的决策权;(2)推动可以帮助履行儿科临床医生的义务,确保父母的决策符合儿童的利益,特别是在强烈确信推荐的干预措施风险低、收益高的情况下;(3)推动可以减轻父母在为孩子做出最佳决策方面的决策负担,特别是在涉及公共卫生的决策方面。