Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The ‘Obligation’ to Screen and its Effect on Autonomy

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States, disease screening is offered to the public as a consumer service. It has been proposed that the act of “consumption” is a manifestation of agency and that the decision to consume is an exercise of autonomy. The enthusiasm of the American public for disease screening and the expansion in the demand for all sorts of disease screening in recent years can be viewed as an expression of such autonomy. Here, we argue that the enthusiasm for disease screening witnessed in the American public today may be more a reflection of the constraint on autonomy than its facilitation. It is our opinion that the articulation of socio-historical processes has contributed to a moral imperative which is reflected in the decision making of individuals around disease screening. We suggest medical and health professionals have a responsibility to facilitate the exercise of individual autonomy in health care decision making as an integral component of professional obligation. These professionals need to problematise healthcare activities that constrain individual autonomy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, S. 2007. Doctors debate ovarian cancer warning signs. Boston, Mass.: Boston Globe http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1294214311&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientld=18927&RQT=309&VName=PQD.

  • Armstrong, D. 1994. Outline of sociology as applied to medicine, 5th ed. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, D. 1995. The rise of surveillance medicine. Sociology of Health and Illness 17(3): 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, E. 1983. Health systems and public scrutiny: Australia, Britain and the United States. Kent: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baudrillard, J. 1998. The consumer society: Myths and structure. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L. and J.F. Childress. 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, L. 2003. Breast cancer, mammography, and malpractice litigation: The controversies continue. American Journal of Roentgenology 180: 1229–1237.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blaxter, M. 2004. Health. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond, M. 2008. Keep your head. New Scientist, 30 August: 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordo, S. 2007. Braveheart, Babe, and the contemporary body. In Enhancing human traits, ethical and social implications, ed. E. Parens, 189–221. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burger, I.M. and N.E. Kass. 2009. Screening in the dark: Ethical consideraions of providing screening tests to individuals when evidence is insufficient to support screening populations. The American Journal of Bioethics 9(4): 3–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chicago Tribune. 2002. Agriculture secretary has breast cancer. Chicago Tribune, 19 September.

  • Conrad, P. 1994. Wellness as virtue: Morality and the pursuit of health. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 18: 385–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, R. 1980. Healthism and the medicalization of everyday life. International Journal of Health Services 10(3): 365–388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Domenighetti, G., B. D’Avanzo, M. Egger, et al. 2003. Women’s perception of the benefits of mammography screening: Population-based survey in four countries. International Journal of Epidemiology 32(5): 816–821.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. 2007. Symptoms and Ovarian Cancer. The New York Times, 19 June. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/opinion/19tue2.html?ei=5070&en=9...

  • Foucault, M. 1973. The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A.W. 2000. All the things which do not fit: Baudrillard and medical consumerism. Families, Systems & Health 18(2): 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A.W. 2002. What’s wrong with medical consumerism? In Consuming health. The commodification of health care, ed. S. Henderson and A. Petersen, 11–30. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanz, K., F. Lewis, and B.K. Rimer. 1997. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice, 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, M. 1993. Psychosomatic subjects and the ‘duty to be well’: Personal agency within medical rationality. Economy and Society 22(3): 357–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadler, N.M. 2004. The last well person. How to stay well despite the health-care system. Québec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, A. 2007. The DNA Age. Cancer free at 33, but weighing a mastectomy. The New York Times, 16 September. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/health/16gene.html

  • Henderson, S. and A. Petersen. 2002. Introduction: Consumerism in health care. In Consuming health. The commodification of health care, ed. S. Henderson and A. Petersen, 1–10. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, R.M., M.J. Barry, J.L. Stanford, et al. 2006. Health outcomes in older men with localized prostate cancer: Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. American Journal of Medicine 119(5): 418–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, W.W. and S. Stewart. 1990. Screening: A general view. Screening in Health Care, 1–20. Oxford: The Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust.

  • Illes, J., D. Kann, K. Karetsky, et al. 2004. Advertising patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Archives of Internal Medicine 164: 2415–2419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, R. 2002. Fabricating ‘health consumers’ in health care politics. In Consuming health. The commodification of health care, ed. S. Henderson and A. Petersen, 31–47. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenen, R. 1994. The at-risk health status and technology: A diagnostic invitation and the gift of knowing. Social Science & Medicine 42: 1545–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, G. 2008. Study suggests some cancers may go away. The New York Times, 25 November.

  • Kramer, B.S. and O.W. Brawley. 2000. Understanding clinical trials — Cancer screening. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 14(4): 831–848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuran, T. and C. Sunstein. 1999. Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review 51(4): 683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. 2008. The political mind. New York City: Viking Adult.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaLonde, M. 1975. A new perspective on the health of Canadians. Ottawa: Ministry of National Health and Welfare, Government of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, H. 1999. Caring for the well: Perspectives on disease prevention. In Extending the boundaries of care. Medical ethics and caring practices, ed. T. Kohn and R. McKechnie, 111–134. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. 1995. The imperative of health. Public health and the regulated body. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu-Yao, G., P.C. Albertson, J.I. Stanford, et al. 2002. A natural experiment examining the impact of aggressive screening and treatment on prostate cancer mortality in two fixed cohorts from Seattle area and Connecticut. BMJ 325(7367): 740.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKnight, J. 1986. Well-being: The new threshold of the old medicine. Health Promotion 1: 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitka, M. 2004. Is PSA testing still useful? JAMA 292(19): 2326–2327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement. 1997. National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49. Bethesda: National Institutes of Health.

  • Obuchowski, N.A., R.J. Graham, M.E. Baker, and K.A. Powell. 2001. Ten criteria for effective screening: Their application to multislice CT screening for pulmonary and colorectal cancers. American Journal of Roentgenology 176: 1357–1362.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, J. 1995. Psychosocial theory and the creation of the risky self. Social Science & Medicine 40(3): 409–415.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. 2003. Governmentality, critical scholarship, and the medical humanities. Journal of Medical Humanities 24(3/4): 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. and D. Lupton. 1996. The new public health. Health and self in the age of risk. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock, I.M. 1974. Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Education Monographs 2: 328–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, L.M., S. Woloshin, F.J. Fowler, and G.H. Welch. 2004. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 291(1): 71–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skrabanek, P. 1990. Why is preventive medicine exempted from ethical constraints? Journal of Medical Ethics 16: 187–190.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • The National Center for Health Statistics. 2005. Deaths/ Mortality. Centers for Disease and Prevention. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm.

  • The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1979. The Belmont Report. Washington D.C. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm.

  • Tones, B.K. 1986. Health education and the ideology of health promotion: A review of alternative approaches. Health Education Research 1(1): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tymstra, T. 1989. The imperative character of medical technology and the meaning of “anticipated decision regret”. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5: 207–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tymstra, T. 2007. ‘At least we tried everything’: About binary thinking, anticipated decision regret, and the imperative character of medical technology. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology 28(3): 131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Surgeon General. 1979. Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on health promotion and disease prevention. Washington D.C.: General Publications Office, U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare.

  • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2006. Guide to clinical preventive services 2006. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verweij, M. 2000. Prevention medicine between obligation and aspiration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, H.G. 2004a. Right and wrong reasons to be screened. Annals of Internal Medicine 140: 754–755.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, H.G. 2004b. Should I be tested for cancer? Maybe not and here’s why. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J.M.G. and G. Jungner. 1968. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public Health Paper WHO No. 34. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Download references

Acknowledgements & Funding

The authors acknowledge the support of the University of Otago Research Committee, by means of a University of Otago Postgraduate Publishing Bursary (PhD).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, 9010, New Zealand

    Yvonne Lau

  2. Department of General Practice, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand

    Chrystal Jaye

  3. 6705 Rockledge Drive, Building One, Suite 350C, Bethesda, MD, 20892-7980, USA

    Yvonne Lau

Authors
  1. Yvonne Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chrystal Jaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yvonne Lau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lau, Y., Jaye, C. The ‘Obligation’ to Screen and its Effect on Autonomy. Bioethical Inquiry 6, 495–505 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9188-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9188-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation