患者自主性和代谢减肥手术:经验观点。

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Shelly Kamin-Friedman, Nili Karako-Eyal, Galya Hildesheimer
{"title":"患者自主性和代谢减肥手术:经验观点。","authors":"Shelly Kamin-Friedman, Nili Karako-Eyal, Galya Hildesheimer","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01177-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metabolic Bariatric Surgery (MBS) has gained significant popularity over the past decade. Legally and ethically, physicians should obtain the patient's voluntary and informed consent before proceeding with the surgery. However, the decision to undergo MBS is often influenced by external factors, prompting questions about their impact on the patient's ability to choose voluntarily. In addressing this issue, the study focuses on two key questions: first, which factors influence MBS candidates during the decision-making process, and second, whether these influences undermine the candidates' ability to make decisions voluntarily, according to theories of autonomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study employed a qualitative methodology, conducting 21 in-depth semi-structured interviews with adults who had undergone bariatric surgery. The conclusions were drawn from an inductive analysis of the interview data conducted using a grounded theory approach, and by applying theories of autonomy to the empirical findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study indicates that interviewees were exposed to different external influences, which had diverse effects on the interviewees' decision to undergo MBS. Category 1 influences included intentional attempts to induce people, through arguments and reason, to accept the attitudes advocated by the persuader in support of the surgery. Applying theoretical accounts of autonomy to these influences suggests that they did not compromise the interviewees' autonomy. Category 2 influences included threats made by a physician or a family member. These influences were found to undermine autonomy. Category 3 influences included emotional manipulation, informational manipulation, and the construction of medical and social norms. Manipulations and norms were experienced differently by different interviewees, and their impact on autonomy varies depending on the theoretical framework applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Acknowledging that the influences exerted on MBS candidates may undermine their ability to make autonomous decisions regarding surgery, we suggest reformulating the duties that apply to medical practitioners with respect to informed consent to MBS. Medical practitioners who discuss the option of MBS with candidates should be aware of the various factors that influence this choice, and actively promote the candidates' ability to make autonomous decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient autonomy and metabolic bariatric surgery: an empirical perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Shelly Kamin-Friedman, Nili Karako-Eyal, Galya Hildesheimer\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12910-025-01177-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Metabolic Bariatric Surgery (MBS) has gained significant popularity over the past decade. Legally and ethically, physicians should obtain the patient's voluntary and informed consent before proceeding with the surgery. However, the decision to undergo MBS is often influenced by external factors, prompting questions about their impact on the patient's ability to choose voluntarily. In addressing this issue, the study focuses on two key questions: first, which factors influence MBS candidates during the decision-making process, and second, whether these influences undermine the candidates' ability to make decisions voluntarily, according to theories of autonomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study employed a qualitative methodology, conducting 21 in-depth semi-structured interviews with adults who had undergone bariatric surgery. The conclusions were drawn from an inductive analysis of the interview data conducted using a grounded theory approach, and by applying theories of autonomy to the empirical findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study indicates that interviewees were exposed to different external influences, which had diverse effects on the interviewees' decision to undergo MBS. Category 1 influences included intentional attempts to induce people, through arguments and reason, to accept the attitudes advocated by the persuader in support of the surgery. Applying theoretical accounts of autonomy to these influences suggests that they did not compromise the interviewees' autonomy. Category 2 influences included threats made by a physician or a family member. These influences were found to undermine autonomy. Category 3 influences included emotional manipulation, informational manipulation, and the construction of medical and social norms. Manipulations and norms were experienced differently by different interviewees, and their impact on autonomy varies depending on the theoretical framework applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Acknowledging that the influences exerted on MBS candidates may undermine their ability to make autonomous decisions regarding surgery, we suggest reformulating the duties that apply to medical practitioners with respect to informed consent to MBS. Medical practitioners who discuss the option of MBS with candidates should be aware of the various factors that influence this choice, and actively promote the candidates' ability to make autonomous decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789378/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01177-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01177-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在过去的十年中,代谢减肥手术(MBS)已经获得了显著的普及。从法律和道德上讲,医生在进行手术之前应该征得病人的自愿和知情同意。然而,接受MBS的决定往往受到外部因素的影响,这引发了人们对这些因素对患者自愿选择能力的影响的质疑。为了解决这一问题,本研究主要关注两个关键问题:第一,在决策过程中哪些因素会影响MBS候选人;第二,根据自主理论,这些影响是否会削弱候选人自愿决策的能力。方法:本研究采用定性方法,对接受过减肥手术的成年人进行了21次深度半结构化访谈。结论是通过运用扎根理论方法对访谈数据进行归纳分析得出的,并将自主性理论应用于实证研究结果。结果:我们的研究表明,受访者受到不同的外部影响,这些外部影响对受访者接受MBS的决定有不同的影响。第一类影响包括故意试图通过争论和推理诱导人们接受说服者所倡导的支持手术的态度。将自主性的理论解释应用于这些影响表明,它们并没有损害受访者的自主性。第二类影响包括来自医生或家庭成员的威胁。这些影响被发现会破坏自主性。第3类影响包括情绪操纵、信息操纵以及医疗和社会规范的构建。不同受访者对操纵和规范的体验不同,其对自主性的影响也因所采用的理论框架而异。结论:承认对MBS候选人施加的影响可能会削弱他们在手术方面自主决策的能力,我们建议重新制定适用于医疗从业者的关于MBS知情同意的责任。与候选人讨论MBS选择的医生应该意识到影响这一选择的各种因素,并积极促进候选人自主决策的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient autonomy and metabolic bariatric surgery: an empirical perspective.

Background: Metabolic Bariatric Surgery (MBS) has gained significant popularity over the past decade. Legally and ethically, physicians should obtain the patient's voluntary and informed consent before proceeding with the surgery. However, the decision to undergo MBS is often influenced by external factors, prompting questions about their impact on the patient's ability to choose voluntarily. In addressing this issue, the study focuses on two key questions: first, which factors influence MBS candidates during the decision-making process, and second, whether these influences undermine the candidates' ability to make decisions voluntarily, according to theories of autonomy.

Methods: The study employed a qualitative methodology, conducting 21 in-depth semi-structured interviews with adults who had undergone bariatric surgery. The conclusions were drawn from an inductive analysis of the interview data conducted using a grounded theory approach, and by applying theories of autonomy to the empirical findings.

Results: Our study indicates that interviewees were exposed to different external influences, which had diverse effects on the interviewees' decision to undergo MBS. Category 1 influences included intentional attempts to induce people, through arguments and reason, to accept the attitudes advocated by the persuader in support of the surgery. Applying theoretical accounts of autonomy to these influences suggests that they did not compromise the interviewees' autonomy. Category 2 influences included threats made by a physician or a family member. These influences were found to undermine autonomy. Category 3 influences included emotional manipulation, informational manipulation, and the construction of medical and social norms. Manipulations and norms were experienced differently by different interviewees, and their impact on autonomy varies depending on the theoretical framework applied.

Conclusions: Acknowledging that the influences exerted on MBS candidates may undermine their ability to make autonomous decisions regarding surgery, we suggest reformulating the duties that apply to medical practitioners with respect to informed consent to MBS. Medical practitioners who discuss the option of MBS with candidates should be aware of the various factors that influence this choice, and actively promote the candidates' ability to make autonomous decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信