我们要求患者做什么?对肿瘤治疗中患者自我辩护局限性的批判性伦理审查》(Critical Ethical Review of the Limits of Patient Self-Advocacy in the Oncology Setting)。

IF 1.4 Q2 ETHICS
Daniel A Wilkenfeld, Teresa Hagan Thomas
{"title":"我们要求患者做什么?对肿瘤治疗中患者自我辩护局限性的批判性伦理审查》(Critical Ethical Review of the Limits of Patient Self-Advocacy in the Oncology Setting)。","authors":"Daniel A Wilkenfeld, Teresa Hagan Thomas","doi":"10.1080/20502877.2022.2143742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Increasing emphasis on patient self-management, including having patients advocate for their needs and priorities, is generally a good thing, but it is not always wanted or attainable by patients. The aim of this critical ethical review is to deepen the current discourse in patient self-advocacy by exposing various situations in which patients struggle to self-advocate. Using examples from oncology patient populations, we disambiguate different notions of self-advocacy and then present limits to the more demanding varieties (i.e., health-related, trust-based, and psychological); we argue that these limits create ethical dilemmas with respect to whether it is always desirable to encourage patients to self-advocate. We conclude that self-advocacy can be both under and overrated with respect to how much it benefits the patient with cancer, with many instances being indeterminate. Ultimately, providers must understand the patient's perspective relative to the challenges they are experiencing and work with them to meet their needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":43760,"journal":{"name":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","volume":"29 2","pages":"181-190"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10183048/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What are We Asking Patients to Do? A Critical Ethical Review of the Limits of Patient Self-Advocacy in the Oncology Setting.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel A Wilkenfeld, Teresa Hagan Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20502877.2022.2143742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Increasing emphasis on patient self-management, including having patients advocate for their needs and priorities, is generally a good thing, but it is not always wanted or attainable by patients. The aim of this critical ethical review is to deepen the current discourse in patient self-advocacy by exposing various situations in which patients struggle to self-advocate. Using examples from oncology patient populations, we disambiguate different notions of self-advocacy and then present limits to the more demanding varieties (i.e., health-related, trust-based, and psychological); we argue that these limits create ethical dilemmas with respect to whether it is always desirable to encourage patients to self-advocate. We conclude that self-advocacy can be both under and overrated with respect to how much it benefits the patient with cancer, with many instances being indeterminate. Ultimately, providers must understand the patient's perspective relative to the challenges they are experiencing and work with them to meet their needs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body\",\"volume\":\"29 2\",\"pages\":\"181-190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10183048/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2143742\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/11/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Bioethics-A Multidisciplinary Journal of Biotechnology and the Body","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2022.2143742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多地强调患者的自我管理,包括让患者为自己的需求和优先事项代言,这通常是件好事,但并不总是患者想要或能够实现的。这篇批判性伦理评论的目的是通过揭示患者在自我倡导方面所面临的各种困境,深化当前关于患者自我倡导的讨论。利用肿瘤患者群体的实例,我们对自我主张的不同概念进行了区分,然后提出了对要求较高的各种自我主张的限制(即与健康相关、基于信任和心理的自我主张);我们认为,这些限制造成了伦理困境,即鼓励患者进行自我主张是否总是可取的。我们的结论是,就癌症患者的获益程度而言,自我倡导既可能被低估,也可能被高估,很多情况下是不确定的。归根结底,医疗服务提供者必须了解病人对其所经历的挑战的看法,并与他们合作以满足他们的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What are We Asking Patients to Do? A Critical Ethical Review of the Limits of Patient Self-Advocacy in the Oncology Setting.

Increasing emphasis on patient self-management, including having patients advocate for their needs and priorities, is generally a good thing, but it is not always wanted or attainable by patients. The aim of this critical ethical review is to deepen the current discourse in patient self-advocacy by exposing various situations in which patients struggle to self-advocate. Using examples from oncology patient populations, we disambiguate different notions of self-advocacy and then present limits to the more demanding varieties (i.e., health-related, trust-based, and psychological); we argue that these limits create ethical dilemmas with respect to whether it is always desirable to encourage patients to self-advocate. We conclude that self-advocacy can be both under and overrated with respect to how much it benefits the patient with cancer, with many instances being indeterminate. Ultimately, providers must understand the patient's perspective relative to the challenges they are experiencing and work with them to meet their needs.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
45
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信