Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Thrombolysis for acute stroke

Ivan Moseley
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.9-6-629
Clin Med December 2009
Ivan Moseley
Ethics Committee National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and Institute of Neurology, University of London
Roles: Retired neuroradiologist; late chairman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Editor – Akinsanya and colleagues (Clin Med June 2009 pp 239–41) pertinently discuss the course to be taken when a patient with acute stroke may not be capable of consenting to thrombolysis, weighing potential benefit against respect for autonomy.

I agree with their conclusions, but once the concept of the autonomous patient whose views must be respected is weakened on any grounds, the door opens to wider rejection of respect for autonomy in favour of beneficence. I suggest the truly autonomous patient – capable of infallibly choosing the best course, all things considered, in the individual case – is rare outside the courts and textbooks of medical ethics. People capable of making the best choice (all things, and so on) of jam in the supermarket may have problems choosing the best (all things, and so on) treatment.

Some of those problems were identified by Eraker and Politser.1 Patients, unlike shoppers, may wish to avoid responsibility for a ‘wrong’ decision. They may be disinclined to make a concrete choice and insisting that they do can result in ‘undue extreme judgements, by requiring [them] to express their wishes with more clarity and coherence than warranted’. There may be significant cognitive or imaginative limits to their appreciating the consequences of their choice. Gains and losses, certain and chance outcomes, may be differentially weighted (as in ‘risk aversion’), frustrating decision analysis.

Doctors and patients come together to achieve a result beneficial to the latter's present and future quality of life. A desire for a less than optimal outcome (all things, and so on) is irrational. If information on which to choose the objective or actual optimal outcome is limited, a subjective and/or antecedent choice must be made – ‘antecedent’ being that which appears best before the result is known. Objective and subjective, antecedent and actual may coincide, but when they do not, it seems irrational to prefer a less efficacious subjective choice simply because it is ‘autonomous’. Thus, I would argue, a doctor suspecting that a choice (all things, and so on) is not optimal because of limitations to the patient's autonomy, should try persuasion. At what stage the patient's wishes can legitimately be ignored remains a teaser.

Footnotes

  • Please submit letters for the Editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of the Journal. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: Clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk

  • © 2009 Royal College of Physicians

Reference

  1. ↵
    1. Eraker EA
    , Politser P. How decision are reached: physician and patient. In: Dowie J, Elstein A (eds), Professional judgement. A reader in clinical decision making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988:544–65.

Thrombolysis for acute stroke

We agree with Dr Moseley that few patients with acute stroke will be able to make completely autonomous decisions regarding thrombolysis and treatment decisions will shift towards beneficence. Beneficence can be considered an ethical imperative for doctors to act in their patients’ ‘best interests’. Unlike paternalism, where the doctor decides what those ‘best interests’ are without reference to a patient's wishes, implicit in the concept of beneficence is a respect for patient autonomy as part of their ‘best interests’.

Treatment decisions require judgements by both physicians and patients. The physician has knowledge of the likely medical outcomes but needs insight into a patient's understanding of their illness and attitudes to treatment, death and disability. The patient wishes to understand the diagnosis, prognosis and options. Ideally these two parts of the jigsaw match enabling an autonomous decision to be made.

The information physicians give may be imperfect as the risks and benefits of a treatment cannot be exactly known and because the evidence base behind a therapy is frequently open to interpretation. Patients will often be unable to fully understand their clinical condition, how their disease will impact on them and the risks and benefits of treatment options. Health utility scores that take into account trade-offs between quality of life and survival durations have been developed but are more useful when comparing healthcare programmes. For specific cases competent patients are the best judge of their own welfare.

We should not dismiss choices we disagree with as non-autonomous but rejection of a treatment likely to be of great benefit, unless based on longstanding convictions (such as those of a Jehovah's witness), is likely to indicate that fear and poor understanding prevents consent rather than an autonomous choice.

The suddenness, seriousness, time sensitive and uncertain prognosis means that thrombolysis for acute stroke is one of the most difficult treatment decisions that a patient ever has to make. Fully autonomous decisions do not exist and we can only aim for maximum autonomy and very often treatment decisions will be based upon beneficence.

Footnotes

  • Please submit letters for the Editor's consideration within three weeks of receipt of the Journal. Letters should ideally be limited to 350 words, and sent by email to: Clinicalmedicine{at}rcplondon.ac.uk

  • © 2009 Royal College of Physicians
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Thrombolysis for acute stroke
Ivan Moseley
Clinical Medicine Dec 2009, 9 (6) 629; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.9-6-629

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Thrombolysis for acute stroke
Ivan Moseley
Clinical Medicine Dec 2009, 9 (6) 629; DOI: 10.7861/clinmedicine.9-6-629
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • Reference
    • Footnotes
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • JAK-inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for refractory primary systemic vasculitides
  • Response
  • Functional disorders and chronic pain
Show more Letters to the editor

Similar Articles

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians