Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101965
Title: | Balancing obligations: Should written information about life-sustaining treatment be neutral? | Authors: | Xafis, V Wilkinson, D Gillam, L Sullivan, J |
Keywords: | adult child counseling decision making ethics Great Britain human informed consent intensive care interpersonal communication palliative therapy parent personal autonomy persuasive communication publication standards terminal care terminally ill patient treatment withdrawal trends United States Adult Child Choice Behavior Coercion Counseling Critical Care Decision Making Disclosure Great Britain Humans Informed Consent Palliative Care Pamphlets Parents Personal Autonomy Terminal Care Terminally Ill United States Withholding Treatment |
Issue Date: | 2015 | Publisher: | BMJ Publishing Group | Citation: | Xafis, V, Wilkinson, D, Gillam, L, Sullivan, J (2015). Balancing obligations: Should written information about life-sustaining treatment be neutral?. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (3) : 234-239. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101965 | Rights: | Attribution 4.0 International | Abstract: | Parents who are facing decisions about life-sustaining treatment for their seriously ill or dying child are supported by their child's doctors and nurses. They also frequently seek other information sources to help them deal with the medical and ethical questions that arise. This might include written or web-based information. As part of a project involving the development of such a resource to support parents facing difficult decisions, some ethical questions emerged. Should this information be presented in a strictly neutral fashion? Is it problematic if narratives, arguments or perspectives appear to favour stopping over continuing life-sustaining treatment? Similar questions might arise with written materials about decisions for adults, or for other ethically contentious decisions. This paper explores the meaning of 'balance' in information provision, focusing particularly on written information about life-sustaining treatment for children. We contrast the norm of nondirectiveness in genetic counselling with the shared decision-making model often endorsed in end-of-life care. We review evidence that parents do not find neutrality from medical professionals helpful in discussions. We argue that balance in written information must be understood in the light of the aim of the document, the most common situation in which it will be used, and any existing biases. We conclude with four important strategies for ensuring that non-neutral information is nevertheless ethically appropriate. | Source Title: | Journal of Medical Ethics | URI: | https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/180126 | ISSN: | 0306-6800 | DOI: | 10.1136/medethics-2013-101965 | Rights: | Attribution 4.0 International |
Appears in Collections: | Staff Publications Elements |
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | Access Settings | Version | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10_1136_medethics-2013-101965.pdf | 366.95 kB | Adobe PDF | OPEN | None | View/Download |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License