The medical decision-making process and the family: The case of breast cancer patients and their husbands

Bioethics

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 183-192

  Gilbar, Roy ^b   Gilbar, Ora ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^b NETANYA ACADEMIC COLLEGE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Breast cancer patients; Decision making; Doctor patient husband relationships; Husband; Paternalism; Patient autonomy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FAMILY RELATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; ISRAEL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATERNALISM; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; SPOUSE;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATION; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FAMILY RELATIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; ISRAEL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATERNALISM; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SPOUSES;

EID: 58649124523     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00650.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. C.M. Gaston G. Mitchell. Information giving and decision-making in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review. Soc Sci Med 2005 61 : 2252 2264
2. N.L. Johnston-Polacek, M.C. Ramos K.L. Ferrer. Breast cancer disparities and decision-making among U.S. women. Patient Educ Couns 2007 65 : 158 165.
3. M.D. Schwartz, B.N. Peshkin K.P. Tercyak et al. Decision making and decision support for hereditary ovarian cancer susceptibility. Health Psychol 2005 24 (4 suppl. 578 584.
4. O. Gilbar & H. Ben-Zur. 2002. Cancer and family caregiver, distress and coping. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Pub.
5. American Cancer Society (2002). Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta: America Cancer Society.
6. E. Falkum R. Forde. Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship attitude among Norwegian physicians. So Sci Med 2001 52 : 239 248.
7. E.J. Emanuel L.L. Emanuel. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA 1992 267 : 2221 2226.
8. See Falkum, supra n. 5.
9. C. Charles, A. Gafni T. Whelan. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med 1997 44 : 681 692
10. K. O'Donovan R. Gilbar. The loved ones: Families, intimates and patient autonomy. LS 2003 23 (2 332 357
11. J. Hardwig. What about the family. Hastings Cent Rep 1990 20 (2 5 11
12. H. Lindemann Nelson & J. Lindemann Nelson. 1995. The Patient in the Family. New York: Routledge: 114-117;
13. C. Levine C. Zukerman. Hands on/Hands off: Why health care professionals depend on families but keep then at arm's length. J Law Med Ethics 2000 28 (1 5.
14. See Charles et al., supra n. 8.
15. C. Levine C. Zukerman. Hands on/Hands off: Why health care professionals depend on families but keep then at arm's length. J Law Med Ethics 2000 28 (1 5. Ibid.
16. C. Charles, A. Gafni T. Whelan. Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999 49 : 651
17. American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Physicians and Family Caregivers. JAMA 1993 269 (10 1282.
18. See Charles et al., supra n. 8, at p. 685.
19. R. Christie & B. Hoffmaster. 1986. Ethical Issues in Family Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 25.
20. See Charles et al., supra n. 12, at p. 658.
21. See Charles et al., supra n. 8, at pp. 689-690.
22. G. Dworkin. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 6;
23. O. O'Neill. 2002. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. th ed. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press: 64.
25. See O'Neill, supra n. 18, at p. 74.
26. C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar, eds. 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.
27. J. Nedelsky. Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale J Law Fem 1989 1 : 7
28. A. Donchin. 2000. Autonomy and interdependence: Quandaries in genetic decision-making. In Relational Autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. C. Mackenzie & N. Stoljar, supra n. 21, at p. 236.
29. See Hardwig, supra n. 9, at p. 6.
30. See Lindemann-Nelson and Lindemann Nelson, supra n. 9, at pp. 114-117.
31. See Beauchamp and Childress, supra n. 19, at p. 57;
32. th edn.: 6-7;
33. R. Gill G.M. Stirrat. Autonomy in medical ethics after O'Neill. J Med Ethics 2005 31 : 127
34. I. Hyun. Conceptions of family-centred medical decision making and their difficulties. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2003 12 : 196.
35. B.A. Hilton. Family decision-making processes about early stage breast cancer treatment. Can Oncol Nurs J 1994 4 (1 9 16.
36. C. Seale. Portrayals of treatment decision-making on popular breast and prostate cancer websites. Eur J Cancer Care 2005 14 : 171 174.
37. See Charles et al., supra n. 8 and n. 12.
38. C. Seale. Portrayals of treatment decision-making on popular breast and prostate cancer websites. Eur J Cancer Care 2005 14 : 171 174. Ibid.
39. C. Seale. Portrayals of treatment decision-making on popular breast and prostate cancer websites. Eur J Cancer Care 2005 14 : 171 174. Ibid.
40. Cancer-Care Research Unit and McMaster University (1997), Hamilton, Canada.
41. R. Gilbar. 2005. The Status of the Family in Law and Bioethics: The genetic context. Aldershot: Ashgate;
42. Hardwig, supra n. 9;
43. Lindemann-Nelson, supra n. 9.
44. E.g., General Medical Council. 2006. Good Medical Practice. London: General Medical Council. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good-medical-practice/ index.asp (last accessed 15/7/2007). In Israel: Ministry of Health. 1995. Circular 11/95 The relationship with the patient and his family. For the legal position in the UK see Gilbar, ibid., Ch. 3 & 4. For the legal position in Israel
45. R. Gilbar. Patient autonomy and relatives' right to know genetic information. Med Law 2007 (in press)
46. See, General Medical Council, Med Law, ibid.
47. See Gilbar, supra n. 34, Ch. 2 & 5.
48. See, Med Law, ibid.