Autonomous and informed decision-making : The case of colorectal cancer screening

PLoS ONE 15 (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Introduction It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision. Methods We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population. The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision. Results Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making. Conclusion Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,363

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Breast cancer screening in younger women: evidence and decision making.J. Mark Elwood - 1997 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 3 (3):179-186.
Collective informed consent and decision power.Jukka Varelius - 2009 - Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):39-50.
Shared decision-making, gender and new technologies.Kristin Zeiler - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):279-287.
The 'obligation' to screen and its effect on autonomy.Yvonne Lau & Chrystal Jaye - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (4):495-505.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-07-06

Downloads
11 (#846,266)

6 months
1 (#451,398)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Marcel Verweij
Wageningen University and Research

References found in this work

Autonomy in medical ethics after O'Neill.G. M. Stirrat - 2005 - Journal of Medical Ethics 31 (3):127-130.

Add more references