The virgil role

The referral of a patient for subspecialty consultation and examination is but one facet of the primary care physician's involvement with his patient. Using examples from my practice, I argue that the term "gatekeeper" is an inadequate term for describing what the primary care physician does, or should do, for his patient. "Virgil Role" is offered as an alternative expression based on a proposed parallel between Dante's passage through the Inferno accompanied by his mentor-guide, Virgil, and a sick person's journey through his personal Hell of illness and the labyrinthine medical care system, guided by his physician.     

AN ISLAMIC APPRAISAL OF MINDING THE GAP

The neglect of psycho‐spiritual needs of patients as they traverse the modern healthcare system has been a featured theme in medical literature over the past decade. This literature, which often highlights in‐patient palliative care, as well as acute and critical care settings, influences practice guidelines and protocols of doctors and nurses. In this essay, I review some of the pertinent issues raised in the literature and examine the validity of placing an ethical perspective on this issue. I also compare Islamic theocentric perspectives with secular, non‐theistic perspectives on restoring psycho‐spiritual care for patients. I then develop a framework for pastoral intervention based on aspects of the Islamic tradition and elaborate this framework by addressing clinical contexts and cases. The essay is an exposition based upon a review of the modern medical literature, an analysis of some of the traditional Islamic written sources, and the observations of the investigator, a practicing physician and an American Muslim.     

The Spiritual Needs and Resources of Hospitalized Primary Care Patients

Previous studies have recognized the importance of hospitalized primary care patients’ spiritual issues and needs. The sources patients consult to address these spiritual issues, including the role of their attending physician, have been largely unstudied. We sought to study patients’ internal and external resources for addressing spiritual questions, while also exploring the physician’s role in providing spiritual care. Our multicenter observational study evaluated 326 inpatients admitted to primary care physicians in four midwestern hospitals. We assessed how frequently these patients identified spiritual concerns during their hospitalization, the manner in which spiritual questions were addressed, patients’ desires for spiritual interaction, and patient outcome measures associated with spiritual care. Nearly 30% of respondents (referred to as “R/S respondents”) reported religious struggle or spiritual issues associated specifically with their hospitalization. Eight-three percent utilized internal religious coping for dealing with spiritual issues. Chaplains, clergy, or church members visited 54% of R/S respondents; 94% found those visits helpful. Family provided spiritual support to 45% of R/S respondents. Eight percent of R/S respondents desired, but only one patient actually received, spiritual interaction with their physician, even though 64% of these patients’ physicians agreed that doctors should address spiritual issues with their patients. We conclude that inpatients quite commonly utilize internal resources and quite rarely utilize physicians for addressing their spiritual issues. Spiritual caregiving is well received and is primarily accomplished by professionals, dedicated laypersons, or family members. A significantly higher percentage of R/S patients desire spiritual interaction with their physician than those who actually receive it.     

Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: I. Leadership of a physician

A patient-physician relationship provides a milieu for a patient to achieve healing, solace, and reintegration of personhood. A patient's primary physician assumes a leadership role in that regard, coordinating and facilitating a regimen of analysis and therapy. The quality, quantity, and rapidity of technological advancements in the delivery of medical care, render any individual physician incomplete in terms of his ability to provide total care. Consequently, a succession of professional and paraprofessional personnel must be involved to maximize the care rendered. Nevertheless, a patient's primary physician must fulfill a leadership role as he coordinates consultations and interprets the data they provide, placing it in the appropriate situational context for his patient as part of a collective and mutual decision-making process. A patient's primary physician must be acknowledged to possess the power and authority to effect the care provided, as he must also accept the accountability, duty, obligation, and responsibility for the result of that care. By these means ambiguity and uncertainty are mitigated.     

Trust in the medical profession and patient attachment style

Attachment style is a person’s approach to interpersonal relationships, which develops from early experiences with primary caregivers and can remain stable into adulthood. Depending on a person’s attachment style, the amount of trust one has in others can vary when forming relationships, and trust is important in formation of the patient–physician relationship. The purpose of this study was to see if there is an association between attachment style and trust in physicians in general. Participants were recruited from an emergency department (ED) and an online university participant pool, and completed short questionnaires assessing attachment style and trust in the medical profession. Results revealed that individuals with a fearful attachment style reported significantly lower levels of trust in the medical profession than those with a secure attachment style. ED participants also reported higher levels of trust in the medical profession in comparison to student participants. This study provides a better understanding of trust in the medical profession, and insight into future care for patients who have low trust.     

The causal explanatory functions of medical diagnoses

Diagnoses in medicine are often taken to serve as explanations of patients’ symptoms and signs. This article examines how they do so. I begin by arguing that although some instances of diagnostic explanation can be formulated as covering law arguments, they are explanatory neither in virtue of their argumentative structures nor in virtue of general regularities between diagnoses and clinical presentations. I then consider the theory that medical diagnoses explain symptoms and signs by identifying their actual causes in particular cases. While I take this to be largely correct, I argue that for a diagnosis to function as a satisfactory causal explanation of a patient’s symptoms and signs, it also needs to be supplemented by understanding the mechanisms by which the identified cause produces the symptoms and signs. This mechanistic understanding comes not from the diagnosis itself, but rather from the theoretical framework within which the physician operates.     

Is This Relevant? Physician Perceptions,Clinical Relevance,and Religious Content in Clinical Interactions

Despite wide support among physicians for practicing patient‐centered care, clinical interactions are primarily driven by physicians’ perception of relevance. While some will perceive a connection between religion and patient health, this relevance will be less apparent for others. I argue that physician responses when religious/spiritual topics come up during clinical interactions will depend on their own religious/spiritual background. The more central religion is for the physician, the greater his or her perception of religion's impact on health outcomes and his or her inclusion of religion/spirituality within clinical interactions. Using a nationally representative sample of physicians in the United States and mediated path models, I estimate models for five different physician actions to evaluate these relationships. I find that a physician's religious background is strongly associated with whether or not he or she thinks religion impacts health outcomes, which is strongly predictive of inclusion. I also find that not all of the association between inclusion and physicians’ religious background is mediated by thinking religion impacts health outcomes. Issues of religion's relevance for medicine are important to the degree that religious beliefs are an important dimension of patients’ lives.     

Getting Obligations Right: Autonomy and Shared Decision Making

Shared Decision Making (‘SDM’) is one of the most significant developments in Western health care practices in recent years. Whereas traditional models of care operate on the basis of the physician as the primary medical decision maker, SDM requires patients to be supported to consider options in order to achieve informed preferences by mutually sharing the best available evidence. According to its proponents, SDM is the right way to interpret the clinician-patient relationship because it fulfils the ethical imperative of respecting patient autonomy. However, there is no consensus about how decisions in SDM contexts relate to the principle of respect for autonomy. In response, I demonstrate that in order to make decisions about what treatment they will or will not receive, patients will be required to meet different conditions depending on the approach proponents of SDM take to understanding personal autonomy. Due to the fact that different conceptions of autonomy yield different obligations, I argue that if physicians and patients satisfied all the conditions described in standard accounts of SDM, then SDM would undermine patient autonomy.     

Jewish medical ethics in the care of the cancer patient

The care of the patient with cancer requires the development not only of a medical plan, but an ethical plan as well. This plan should integrate the physician's and the patient's perceptions of medical and ethical propriety. Jewish biomedical ethical principles are based on the teaching of the Old Testament and its various interpretations. In this paper, I discuss how these principles can be used to help guide the physician caring for the patient with cancer. Other ethical systems could be applied in a similar fashion.     

FUTILITY AND THE VARIETIES OF MEDICAL JUDGMENT

Pellegrino has argued that end-of-life decisions should be based upon the physician's assessment of the effectiveness of the treatment and the patient's assessment of its benefits and burdens. This would seem to imply that conditions for medical futility could be met either if there were a judgment of ineffectiveness, or if the patient were in a state in which he or she were incapable of a subjective judgment of the benefits and burdens of the treatment. I argue that a theory of futility according to Pellegrino would deny that latter but would permit some cases of the former. I call this the “circumspect” view. I show that Pellegrino would adopt the circumspect view because he would see the medical futility debate in the context of a system of medical ethics based firmly upon a philosophy of medicine. The circumspect view is challenged by those who would deny that one can distinguish objective from subjective medical judgments. I defend the circumspect view on the basis of a previously neglected aspect of the philosophy of medicine -- an examination of varieties of medical judgment. I then offer some practical applications of this theory in clinical practice.     

“I Fired My Last Doctor for Not Taking Me Seriously”: Collaborating With a Difficult Medical Patient in a Multidisciplinary Primary Care Facility

We present the case of a multidisciplinary primary care assessment of a 32-year-old woman with multiple medical and psychological complaints. Following the collaborative care model, this assessment was conducted by a team consisting of a clinical health psychologist, Dr. J. L. Skillings, and a family physician, Dr. W. J. Murdoch. We describe the primary care environment in which this referral was made including the methods that were utilized to insure a successful professional collaboration. We report the results and recommendations from a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment; we place emphasis on the psychological diagnosis and pain symptoms. We also describe the feedback session in which the assessment results were provided to the patient and her spouse by both physician and psychologist. Multiperspective commentary about the assessment is offered by the patient and her husband as well as the physician and psychologist assessors.     

Patients and profits

The thesis of the paper is that For Profit Hospitals are morally inappropriate health care delivery institutions. The thesis is established first by elaborating on the beneficent nature of medicine, hospitals, and the physician/patient relationship. The primary obligation of the physician, who draws on the resources of medicine and the hospitals, is to restore personal autonomy that is diminished by illness and suffering within the constraints of the ‘canon of loyalty’ that frames the physician patient relationship. Hospitals have historically played the role of facilitator enhancing a physician's ability to administer treatment. Next it is argued that For Profit Hospitals may neglect the role of facilitator. This neglect may occur given the institutions' motivations to return a profit to investors by exploiting the patient/physician relationship. This exploitation is clearly shown to be contrary to the ‘canon of loyalty’ that ought to exist between the patient and physician.     

"I fired my last doctor for not taking me seriously": collaborating with a difficult medical patient in a multidisciplinary primary care facility

We present the case of a multidisciplinary primary care assessment of a 32-year-old woman with multiple medical and psychological complaints. Following the collaborative care model, this assessment was conducted by a team consisting of a clinical health psychologist, Dr. J. L. Skillings, and a family physician, Dr. W. J. Murdoch. We describe the primary care environment in which this referral was made including the methods that were utilized to insure a successful professional collaboration. We report the results and recommendations from a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment; we place emphasis on the psychological diagnosis and pain symptoms. We also describe the feedback session in which the assessment results were provided to the patient and her spouse by both physician and psychologist. Multiperspective commentary about the assessment is offered by the patient and her husband as well as the physician and psychologist assessors.     

Ethical Issues in Family-Centered Primary Care

In 1969 a new primary care medical specialty, family practice, was formally created. One element in the development of this specialty from the roots of general practice was an understanding of the importance of family process in health and health care. Family physicians are now trained to work with families in the provision of primary medical care, and many provide some formal family counseling and therapy. The family physician who works with families faces many of the same ethical conflicts with which family therapists are confronted. The primary relationship of the family physician to his or her patients, however, as the provider of continuing health care, modifies these conflicts and creates new and vexing problems.     

Making good choices: toward a theory of well-being in medicine

The principle of beneficence directs healthcare practitioners to promote patients’ well-being, ensuring that the patients’ best interests guide treatment decisions. Because there are a number of distinct theories of well-being that could lead to different conclusions about the patient’s good, a careful consideration of which account is best suited for use in the medical context is needed. While there has been some discussion of the differences between subjective and objective theories of well-being within the bioethics literature, less attention has been given to the questions of what work a theory of well-being needs to do in bioethics and which standards of success ought to be used in selecting a theory of well-being for use in medicine. In this article, I argue that traditional theories of well-being developed in philosophy are not well suited to meet the needs of the medical context. For the principle of beneficence to be most useful, the underlying account of well-being should satisfy two conditions: first, it needs to lead to a concrete, action-guiding determination of the patient’s good; and, second, any recommendations it offers need to be justifiable to patients. Standard accounts of well-being have difficulty satisfying both conditions. Exploring the limitations of these theories when applied to treatment dilemmas helps point the way toward the development of an account of well-being better suited to healthcare.     

The physician's influence on informed consent for bone marrow transplantation

The influence of physician judgment on the disclosure, competency, understanding, voluntariness, and decision aspects of informed consent for bone marrow transplantation are described. Ethical conflicts which arise from the amount and complexity of the information to be disclosed and from the barriers of limited time, patient anxiety and lack of prior relationship between patient and physician are discussed. The role of the referring physician in the decision-making is considered. Special ethical issues which arise with use of healthy related bone marrow donors are discussed, as is the physician's discretion in raising questions of competency. It is concluded that in this setting, regardless of the theoretical goals of the physician, patients appear to utilize informed consent discussions to assess their capacity to trust the physician rather than as a time to weigh the large amount of relevant data. The conscientious physician best serves the patient with recommendation of the best medical alternative rather than with attempts to remain neutral.     

Vertical integration in medical settings: A brief introduction to its potential effects on professional psychology

Vertical integration in medical settings typically involves the merging of independent physicians, physician groups, and hospitals to render an organized health care network. Such systems are considered to be vertical, as they may allow for a seamless continuation of services throughout the range of needs a patient may require. Mergers often result in the redefining of professional services offered in the acquired facility or across the network. As such, mergers have the potential of adversely impacting psychological practices. Professional psychology needs to take a proactive stance in this changing health care landscape. Research regarding empirically validated treatments and effects of psychological interventions on overall health-care costs needs to be properly disseminated to health care administrators to assure their knowledge of the utility of psychological services in the medical setting. Training psychologists to assume leadership positions in health-care institutions, gaining representation on hospital staff boards, and linking psychologists and physicians through collaborative training, to provide improved care, may allow for psychology to influence health care delivery.     

Mutuality in medical services

While available to a multitude, routine health precautions and basic, nonspecialized medical services are lacking in many societies. This may in part be the outcome of attitudinal distortions, not only at the national and global levels, but fundamentally within the patient-physician encounter. Demands for a disturbance-free subsistence clash with values of power and control within health-care sub-systems resulting in an overall neglect of primary needs and a distribution of medical services that benefits select groups. True needs are misrepresented and an intensification of particular services does not fulfill one's duties toward those who realize little or no services at all. The entire institutional system of medicine requires a rebalancing of rights, intentions and outcomes, beginning with the correlative experiences of patient and physician.     

The relevance of Heidegger’s philosophy of technology for biomedical ethics

Heidegger’s thoughts on modern technology have received much attention in many disciplines and fields, but, with a few exceptions, the influence has been sparse in biomedical ethics. The reason for this might be that Heidegger’s position has been misinterpreted as being generally hostile towards modern science and technology, and the fact that Heidegger himself never subjected medical technologies to scrutiny but was concerned rather with industrial technology and information technology. In this paper, Heidegger’s philosophy of modern technology is introduced and then brought to bear on medical technology. Its main relevance for biomedical ethics is found to be that the field needs to focus upon epistemological and ontological questions in the philosophy of medicine related to the structure and goal of medical practice. Heidegger’s philosophy can help us to see how the scientific attitude in medicine must always be balanced by and integrated into a phenomenological way of understanding the life-world concerns of patients. The difference between the scientific and the phenomenological method in medicine is articulated by Heidegger as two different ways of studying the human body: as biological organism and as lived body. Medicine needs to acknowledge the priority of the lived body in addressing health as a way of being-in-the-world and not as the absence of disease only. A critical development of Heidegger’s position can provide us with a criterion for distinguishing the uses of medical technologies that are compatible with such an endeavor from the technological projects that are not.     

Objective consequentialism and the licensing dilemma

Frank Jackson has put forward a famous thought experiment of a physician who has to decide on the correct treatment for her patient. Subjective consequentialism tells the physician to do what intuitively seems to be the right action, whereas objective consequentialism fails to guide the physician’s action. I suppose that objective consequentialists want to supplement their theory so that it guides the physician’s action towards what intuitively seems to be the right treatment. Since this treatment is wrong according to objective consequentialism, objective consequentialists have to license it without calling it right. I consider eight strategies to spell out the idea of licensing the intuitively right treatment and argue that objective consequentialism is on the horns of what I call the licensing dilemma: Either the physician’s action is not guided towards the intuitively right treatment. Or the guidance towards the intuitively right treatment is ad hoc in some respect or the other.