Doctors' Moral Views Influence Their Advice
to Patients
By
E.J. Mundell
HealthDay Reporter
(HealthDay
News) -- Your physician's moral
outlook may play a larger role in your
medical care than you realize, according
to the first-ever survey of doctors' views
on controversial procedures.
For example, more than half (52 percent)
of doctors surveyed objected to the use
of abortion due to failed contraception,
and about 40 percent said they wouldn't
give a 16-year-old a contraceptive without
parental consent.
What's more, nearly one-third (29 percent)
of physicians interviewed said they would
balk at referring a patient to another
doctor for a procedure or drug they felt
qualms about recommending themselves.
And 14 percent -- one in seven -- said
they would not mention a procedure they
believed to be morally wrong as a viable
treatment option.
However, that stance is itself "morally
questionable," contends one medical
ethicist, Dr. David Stern, an associate
professor of medicine and medical education
at the University of Michigan.
No one is advocating that doctors perform
procedures they object to, Stern said.
However, "because we are in a position
of power over patients who walk through
the door, I think we have a professional
responsibility to at least disclose treatments,"
said Stern, who was not involved in the
study.
The findings, by a team from the University
of Chicago, are published in the Feb.
8 issue of the New England Journal of
Medicine.
The physician's office has always been
"ground zero" for controversial
medical issues such as euthanasia, abortion,
and contraceptives such as the "morning-after
pill."
However, up until this survey, experts
have known little about what U.S. doctors
think about sensitive issues like these,
and how those views might impact medical
practice.
The new study was led by Dr. Farr Curlin,
an associate professor of medicine at
the University of Chicago's MacLean Center
for Clinical Medical Ethics. His team
surveyed 1,144 physicians from varying
specialities on their views on issues
such as abortion, giving terminal sedation
to dying patients, and prescribing birth
control to teens without their parents'
consent.
The doctors were also quizzed about their
level of religious belief and its importance
in their lives.
The results: 83 percent of physicians
said they had no objection to terminal
sedation of the dying, and 48 percent
said they had no moral objection to abortion
in the case of failed contraception. Fifty-eight
percent of doctors had no problem prescribing
contraception to a minor without parental
consent.
Most doctors (63 percent) also felt that
it was "ethically permissible"
to express a personal moral bias to a
patient. The large majority -- 86 percent
-- agreed that, even if a doctor objected
to a particular legal medical procedure,
he or she was still obligated to list
it as an available treatment option when
advising patients.
A large majority of doctors (71 percent)
also felt obligated to refer a patient
who wanted a particular procedure to another
physician -- one who had no moral qualms
about the treatment.
Demographic patterns emerged during the
study. Older doctors were more likely
than younger practitioners to support
full disclosure of personal moral views
to patients, and female physicians were
nearly twice as likely as males to support
full disclosure of treatment options and
to refer patients to other doctors.
"We don't know for sure, but we speculate
that women are bringing to mind issues
of sexual and reproductive health care
-- which disproportionately affect them
-- and that may explain the [gender] difference,"
Curlin said.
Not surprisingly, religion played a key
role in the doctors' responses. Highly
religious physicians were much less likely
to disclose a morally objectionable treatment
option to a patient, for example, than
doctors who were less devout.
Curlin said he was disturbed by the notion
that 14 percent of U.S. doctors -- who
together care for about 40 million Americans
-- might intentionally withhold important
treatment information from patients because
of personal moral objections.
The Chicago researcher believes that it's
perfectly fine -- even beneficial -- that
doctors make their personal beliefs known
to patients. Then, at least, patients
can understand why doctors might advise
them in the way that they do, and act
accordingly.
But to withhold valuable information from
patients is wrong, Curlin said.
"It's the difference between saying,
'Ms. Smith, there are only these three
options for you,' versus saying, 'Ms.
Smith, let me be clear -- I think that
there are only three good options for
you, and I'm not going to give you information
on obtaining this other option, because
I really hope that you won't get it,'
" Curlin said. "At least then,
patients can understand why they are getting
that counsel."
Patients can then, if they so choose,
seek out a doctor on their own who would
perform the requested procedure, Curlin
said.
But another expert said physician referral
is another obligatory part of standard
medical care.
"I really think that's part of a
physician's duty, and that's what the
leading professional associations say,
also," said Dr. Peter Ubel, director
of the Center for Behavioral and Decision
Sciences in Medicine at the University
of Michigan.
"Yes, it may seem weird to say, 'I
think this procedure is wrong, but here's
a guy who can do it for you,' " Ubel
said. "I understand why that might
make someone morally uncomfortable. But
that is part of what your job as a physician
is."
So, where does all of this leave patients,
many of whom have little insight into
their doctor's personal moral views?
"I think people need to educate themselves,"
said Ubel, who is also a professor of
medicine at the University of Michigan.
"When your doctor says, 'Here's how
I think that you should be treated,' I
say -- do your homework. I am not saying
that you shouldn't trust your physician,
because I think most of us are really
trying to help patients out. But nobody
knows everything, and we all come with
our biases. Patients should empower themselves
with knowledge."