Practice Guidelines, Patient Interests, and Risky Procedures

Bioethics 10 (4):310-323 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A clinical scenario is described where an anaesthetist is concerned about the seemingly high risk/benefit ratio relating to laparoscopic versus standard inguinal hernia operations. Some options for further action by the anaesthetist are introduced. The remainder of the paper explores the question of who can legitimately assess the acceptability of risk/benefit ratios, and defends the use of practice guidelines at the expense of so called clinical freedom. It is argued that respect for persons is not breached by limiting the treatment options offered to patients to those therapies which have a ‘reasonable’ risk/benefit ratio. This ‘reasonableness’ is context dependent, and should be properly decided by those with expertise in the field.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,748

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

Understanding risks and benefits in research on reproductive genetic technologies.Janet Malek - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-17

Downloads
18 (#1,189,382)

6 months
6 (#683,963)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Dependency: The foundational value in medical ethics.A. V. Campbell - 1994 - In K. W. M. Fulford, Grant Gillett & Janet Martin Soskice, Medicine and Moral Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 184--192.

Add more references