Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Surgical Decision-Making Process: Different Ethical Approaches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Ethics

  • 796 Accesses

Abstract

The realities of surgical decision making entail some limits on unbridled autonomy, which can resemble paternalism. The received tradition in bioethics considers shared decision making the gold standard in determining what course of action a patient should take. This chapter examines the various forms of patient–surgeon relationships related to decision making, describes ideal forms of shared decision making, and discusses different approaches in emergent, urgent, and elective clinical situations. The use of decision aids, second opinions, and referrals, as well as fully engaged multidisciplinary discussions, can help the surgeon retain the moral agency that is a requisite component of excellence in surgical practice without devolving into paternalism. The goal is to perform the right operation on the right patient at the right time for the right reasons.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stain SC. Informed surgical consent. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;222(4):717–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Schneider CE. The practice of autonomy: patients, doctors, and medical decisions. New York: OUP; 1998. p. xiv.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making–pinnacle of patient-centered care. New Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitney SN, McGuire AL, McCullough LB. A typology of shared decision making, informed consent, and simple consent. Ann Intern Med. 2003;140:54–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brock DW. The ideal of shared decision making. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1991;1(1):28–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kelly ML, Sulmasy DP, Weil RL. Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage and the challenge of surgical decision making: a review. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;45(5):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ubel PA, Loewenstein G, Jepson C. Whose quality of life? A commentary exploring the discrepancies between health state evaluations of patients and the general public. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dworkin G. Paternalism. In: Sartorius R, editor. Paternalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1987. p. 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267:2221.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fowler FJ Jr, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR. Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:136–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. International patient decision aids standards collaboration. Criteria for judging the quality of patient decision aids. 2005. www.ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_checklist.pdf.

  15. Kuehn BM. States explore shared decision making. JAMA. 2009;301(24):2539–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. University of Washington. Shared decision making project at the University of Washington. 2009. http://depts.washington.edu/shareddm/waleg.

  17. Fowler FF Jr, Gallagher PM, Drake KM, Sepucha KR. Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(3):136–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF, et al. Can women with early-stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(4):519–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mattox KL, Engelhardt HT Jr. Emergency patients: serious moral choices with limited time, information, and patient participation. In: McCullough LB, Jones JW, Brody BA, editors. Surgical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 78–96.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shuman AG. Contemplating resectability. Hastings Cent Rep. 2017;47:3–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Boss EF, Mehta N, Ngarajan N, et al. Shared decision-making and choice for elective surgical care: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154(3):405–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwarze ML, Bradley CT, Brasel KJ. Surgical “buy-in”: the contractual relationship between surgeons and patients that influences decisions made regarding life-supporting therapy. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(3):843–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nabozny MJ, Kruser JM, Steffens NM, Pecanec KE, Brasel KJ, et al. Patient reported limitations to surgical buy-in: a qualitative study of patients facing high risk surgery. Ann Surg. 2017;265:97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ross LF, Glannon W, Gottlieb LJ, Thistlethwaite JR Jr. Different standards are not double standards: all elective surgical patients are not alike. J Clin Ethics. 2012;23(2):118–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McCullough LB, Jones JW, Brody BA, editors. Surgical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998. p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wicclair MR, White DB. Surgeons, intensivists, and the discretion to refuse requested treatments. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(5):33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kant I. Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  28. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 1995;95(2):314–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20161484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mill JS. On liberty. In: John Stuart Mill, on liberty and utilitarianism. New York: Bantam Books; 1993. p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Diekema DS. Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention. Theor Med Bioethics. 2004;25(4):243–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ranganathan K, Vercler CJ, Warschausky SA, MacEachern MP, Buchman SR, Waljee JF. Comparative effectiveness studies examining patient-reported outcomes among children with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):198–211.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Christian J. Vercler

  2. Center for Bioethics & Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Christian J. Vercler

  3. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Sagar S. Deshpande

Authors
  1. Christian J. Vercler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sagar S. Deshpande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian J. Vercler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Alberto R. Ferreres

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Vercler, C.J., Deshpande, S.S. (2019). The Surgical Decision-Making Process: Different Ethical Approaches. In: Ferreres, A. (eds) Surgical Ethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05964-4_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05963-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05964-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation