Distinction between ideal theories of consent/autonomy and actual partial consent (basis of her theory).
Coercion: Doctor does things against the patient's will.
Deception: Doctor lies or intentionally misinforms the patient.
Even for an ideal person, coercion and deception make autonomy impossible, extending to actual partial consent/autonomy.
Coercion and deception are problematic because:
You don't know what you're agreeing to.
You don't have an accurate representation of what's being done.
Coercion deprives you of willing something to happen.
Under O'Neil's Theory:
Coercion and deception are not entirely ruled out.
Distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental aspects of a procedure.
Fundamental aspects: Patient must not be coerced and must be accurately informed.
Non-fundamental aspects: May contain elements of deception or coercion.
Placebos
Inert drugs with no chemical/biological effect relevant to disease treatment.
Work through psychological suggestion.
O'Neil: Placebos are acceptable if used for non-fundamental aspects of treatment.
Coercion
Acceptable if it doesn't pertain to fundamental stuff (e.g., restraining a patient for an injection).
Problem with O'Neil's Idea
The definition of "fundamental" is unclear.
Candidates for "fundamental":
Description of the procedure.
Description of the effects of the procedure.
Difficulty: What is fundamental for a doctor may not be fundamental for a patient (e.g., blood transfusions and religious groups).
Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists prohibit blood transfusions.
There might not be an objective standard for what is fundamental; it depends on one's values.
Defense of O'Neil: Anything a person might be concerned about should be considered fundamental.
Challenge: It's hard to create a comprehensive list of concerns.
Serious question for O'Neil's view: Fundamental according to what standard?
Manipulation and Patient Goals
Patient's goals should guide medical treatment.
Cullen and Klein reading: Doctor recommends/sells vitamins to the patient.
Lipkin: Deception is acceptable if it benefits the patient.
For O'Neil, patient's goals matter
Don't manipulate people into doing what you want as a medical practitioner.
Respecting autonomy means respecting the patient's goals and values.
Summary of O'Neil
Judgments of autonomy must be contextual.
Respect for patient autonomy means avoiding deceit, coercion, manipulation, and paternalism.
Where autonomy is absent, there is no requirement that it be respected
If a patient has decision-making capability and can be informed, respect their wishes.
If no autonomy, fall back on beneficence.
Enhancing patient autonomy is an obligation for doctors.
Lipkin, Cullen, and Klein
Truth in Diagnosis
80% of patients want to know if they have a terminal condition.
Doctors should find out patient preferences (Cullen and Klein).
Matt Lipkin: It's impossible for a doctor to convey the whole truth; therefore, they are not obligated to do so
Lipkin's Argument: Impossibility of Conveying the Whole Truth
Different Understandings:
Doctors and patients have different understandings.
High stakes and emotions lead to selective hearing.
Different conceptions of terms (e.g., "heart condition," "arthritis").
Patients are often underinformed and may consult unreliable sources.
Patient Preferences and Comprehension:
Patients can't comprehend all details.
Giving the whole truth can thwart medical aims.
Placebos: Power of suggestion is strong and important.
Required truth telling removes the tool of placebos.
Judging by Intention:
Judge what doctors say by their aim, not just truth.
The aim is health and patient benefit.
Falsity can be justified if it achieves this aim.
Discussion on Placebos:
Can doctors casually deceive about placebos?
Would it be okay to treat cancer with a placebo instead of chemotherapy?
Case-by-case basis for placebos.
Deception is justified so that way you don't impose fear on a patient
Evaluating Honesty
Evaluate what doctors say in terms of truth and giving the complete truth is not a good criterion.
Must look at the further aim of health and patient benefit.
Medical situations may demand that the naked facts not be revealed.
Cullen and Klein
DBP View (Deceiving a Patient for Their Own Good)
Permissible if it promotes the health of the patient.
Cullen and Klein disagree: Deception is wrong.
Analogy: Deception is the same as taking the life of one person to save others.
Fundamental Principle: Respect for Persons
Kant, deontology, O'Neil.
Reasoning ability is the source of our value; it is beyond price.
Wrong to destroy or interfere with our ability to reason.
Lying, coercing, substituting goals deprives us of rationality.
Doctor provides misinformation for the doctor's own good
Vitamins example
Doctor Misinforming Patients
Restricts their ability to act freely.
Devalues/disrespects their ability to reason/make decisions.
Dilemma Doctors Face
Tell the patient they are terminal and ruin their life, or deceive them for anxiety-free existence?
Overwhelmingly doctors should inform their patients, with some exceptions.
Misinformation deprives the patient of the power to plan their lives.
Three Questions for Cullen and Klein's View:
What if the patient doesn't want to be told?
A desire for ignorance can be an expression of autonomy.
Doctors can't assume patients don't want to know
Don't deceive, but respect their wish to not know.
Override- if terminal conditions can affect other people and or their health
Best case scenario- is that doctors by absorbing information from patients whether or not they would want to know
Go with informing in this case bc people are not rational
What if the doctor themselves doesn't know?
There still might be those cases where the doctor can't tell the patient the truth
Doctor will claim that the cannot tell them bc it is impossible
For example, Lipkin
The cant understand it and complete grasp
Doctors dumb everything down for patients- the patient needs the understanding to appreciate the nature as seriousness, potential, risk of therapy and available therapies