IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v52y2001i2p239-248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship: Attitudes among Norwegian physicians

Author

Listed:
  • Falkum, Erik
  • Førde, Reidun

Abstract

Sixteen statements on physician attitudes in the physician-patient relationship were presented to a representative sample of Norwegian physicians (N=990). Three moderately correlated theoretical dimensions were identified in a principal component analysis: paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation. The paternalism scores increased significantly with age, and psychiatrists scored significantly lower than physicians in somatic specialties. Psychiatrists had the highest scores on the patient autonomy dimension, whereas surgeons scored the lowest. Moral deliberation scores increased slightly with age. To explore the pattern of scores across the three dimensions, the scores were dichotomized and combined in eight different ways. The resulting typology included five different physician profiles: (1) classical paternalists (high scores on paternalism, low scores on both patient autonomy and moral deliberation), (2) modern paternalists (high scores on both paternalism and deliberation, low scores on patient autonomy), (3) autonomists ( high scores on patient autonomy, low scores on both paternalism and deliberation), (4) deliberationists (high scores on deliberation and patient autonomy, low scores on paternalism), and (5) ambivalents (high or low scores on all dimensions, or high or low scores on both paternalism and patient autonomy). The four groups of physicians with 'consistent' attitudes contained between 12 and 19% of the total sample, whereas 37% belonged to the 'ambivalent' group. Laboratory doctors and surgeons belonged significantly more often in the group of classical paternalists than did general practitioners, whereas male physicians were more often modern paternalists than were female physicians. Among the autonomists, women were more numerous than men, doctors in their 40s clearly more numerous than those in their 60s, and psychiatrists clearly more numerous than residents.

Suggested Citation

  • Falkum, Erik & Førde, Reidun, 2001. "Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship: Attitudes among Norwegian physicians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 239-248, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:2:p:239-248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(00)00224-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Flynn, Kathryn E. & Smith, Maureen A. & Vanness, David, 2006. "A typology of preferences for participation in healthcare decision making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1158-1169, September.
    2. Anne M. Stiggelbout & Albert C. Molewijk & Wilma Otten & J. Hajo Van Bockel & Cornelis M. A. Bruijninckx & Ilse Van der Salm & Job Kievit, 2008. "The Impact of Individualized Evidence-Based Decision Support on Aneurysm Patients' Decision Making, Ideals of Autonomy, and Quality of Life," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 751-762, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:52:y:2001:i:2:p:239-248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.