IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i3p377-379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hippocratic Oath, Effect Size, and Utility Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Robert F. Bordley

    (General Motors Research Labs, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, robert.bordley @gm.com)

Abstract

To be consistent with the Hippocratic Oath, this article proposes that a physician choose that treatment that has the greatest chance of giving the patient an outcome no worse than the uncertain outcome an untreated patient would experience. As this article shows, this specifies the utility function that the physician should use in choosing among treatments. This utility function, although varying with the life circumstances of the patient, need not reflect the patient's utility function. This Hippocratic utility function can be estimated with an effect size measure similar to the stochastic superiority and common language effect size measures used in the statistical analysis of experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert F. Bordley, 2009. "The Hippocratic Oath, Effect Size, and Utility Theory," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 377-379, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:3:p:377-379
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09333128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09333128
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09333128?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tetsuya Kaji & Jianfei Cao, 2023. "Assessing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects," Papers 2306.15048, arXiv.org.

    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:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:3:p:377-379. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.