Patients' autonomy and medical benefit: ethical reasoning among GPs

Background. During the last decades, the traditional role of GPs as decisio n-makers for their patients has been questioned. Objectives. The aim of this study was to identify and discuss how GPs deal with and how they reason in situations where there is a possible tension be tween the obligation to respect the patients' right to self-determination a nd the obligation to promote their health. Methods. One hundred and twenty randomly selected Swedish GPs received a ma iled questionnaire with two vignettes, one describing a patient reluctant t o have a medically motivated intervention, the other describing a patient r equesting a medically doubtful intervention, Forty seven of these GPs subse quently were interviewed by telephone. Results. With regard to the first vignette, approximately two-thirds of res pondents to the questionnaire (n = 82) answered that they would not accept the patient's reluctance. Older GPs were somewhat more inclined to try to p ersuade the patient to come to their surgery than were younger colleagues. In the interview most respondents answered that the right to self-determina tion ought to be given priority, but the obligation to promote health had a greater influence on their behaviour. Regarding the second vignette, two-t hirds of respondents to the questionnaire answered that they would not give way to the patient's request for intervention. Younger GPs said "No" more often than did their older colleagues. In the interviews, justifications fo r their response referred to medical benefit, uneasy patients, self-protect ion and justice. Conclusion. When facing such conflicts in everyday practice, the ethical co des of medicine are often too categorical to give any guidance. The situati onal ideal of covenant would be more helpful, and ought to be emphasized by medical teachers as well as tutoring older colleagues.