Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 9 (2):227-241 (2006)
|Abstract||Is it ever permissible to publish a patient’s confidences without permission? I investigate this question for the field of psychoanalysis. Whereas most medical fields adopted a 1995 recommendation for consent requirements, psychoanalysis continues to defend the traditional practice of nonconsensual publication. Both the hermeneutic and the scientific branches of the field justify the practice, arguing that it provides data needed to help future patients, and both branches advance generalizations and causal claims. However the hermeneutic branch embraces methods tending to undermine the reliability of such claims, while the scientific branch aims to improve the field’s empirical base – in their words, to advance psychoanalysis as a science. The scientific branch therefore has the stronger claim to the traditional practice, and it their claim that I consider. An immediate concern arises. We seem unable to answer the applied ethical question without first determining which ethical theory is correct; for defenders of the practice appeal variously to therapeutic privilege, principlism, and utilitarianism, while opponents wage autonomy-based arguments. The concern turns out to be unfounded, however, because all of these ethical approaches fail to justify the traditional practice. The more promising defenses fail partly because even the scientific branch of the field lacks empirically sound methods for establishing its causal claims and generalizations, often appealing to authority instead. I conclude that it is currently unethical for analysts to continue publishing their patients’ confidences without permission, and I suggest that the field help future patients by attending to its methodological problems.|
|Keywords||Autonomy Case report Confidentiality Human subject research Informed consent Nonconsensual publication Psychoanalysis Science|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sheila McLean (2010). Autonomy, Consent and the Law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Margaret Nash (1989). Gr Nbaum and Psychoanalysis. Philosophical Psychology 2 (3):325 – 343.
Dayna Bowen Matthew (2008). Race, Religion, and Informed Consent - Lessons From Social Science. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (1):150-173.
Theda Rehbock (2011). Limits of Autonomy in Biomedical Ethics? Conceptual Clarifications. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (04):524-532.
Deborah Bowman (2011). Informed Consent: A Primer for Clinical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Roland Peterson & Sybe Terwee (1994). Can Functionalism Provide the Proper Basis for a Core Theory of Psychoanalysis? Philosophical Psychology 7 (4):463-469.
Oonagh Corrigan (ed.) (2009). The Limits of Consent: A Socio-Ethical Approach to Human Subject Research in Medicine. Oxford University Press.
M. Sheehan (2011). Can Broad Consent Be Informed Consent? Public Health Ethics 4 (3):226-235.
Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski (2004). Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1).
Lotte Asveld (2006). Informed Consent in the Fields of Medical Technological Practice. Techné 10 (1):16-29.
Piotr S. Iwanowski (2007). Informed Consent Procedure for Clinical Trials in Emergency Settings: The Polish Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3).
N. Stoljar (2011). Informed Consent and Relational Conceptions of Autonomy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (4):375-384.
Jerome Bickenbach (2012). Argumentation and Informed Consent in the Doctor–Patient Relationship. Journal of Argumentaion in Context 1 (1):5-18.
Emma Bullock (2010). Informed Consent as Waiver: The Doctrine Rethought? Ethical Perspectives 17 (4):529-555.
Added to index2011-02-14
Total downloads3 ( #201,837 of 549,068 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?