Abstract
In this paper, I explore the role that regret does and should play in medical
decision-making. Specifically, I consider whether the possibility of a patient
experiencing post-treatment regret is a good reason for a clinician to counsel against
that treatment or to withhold it. Currently, the belief that a patient may experience
post-treatment regret is sometimes taken as a sufficiently strong reason to withhold it,
even when the patient makes an explicit, informed request. Relatedly, medical researchers
and practitioners often understand a patient’s post-treatment regret to be a
significant problem, one that reveals a mistake or flaw in the decision-making process.
Contrary to these views, I argue that the possibility of post-treatment regret is not
necessarily a good reason for withholding the treatment. This claim is justified by
appealing to respect for patient autonomy. Furthermore, there are occasions when the
very reference to post-treatment regret during medical decision-making is inappropriate.
This, I suggest, is the case when the decision concerns a Bpersonally transformative
treatment^. This is a treatment that alters a person’s identity. Because the
treatment is transformative, neither clinicians nor the patient him/herself can ascertain
whether post-treatment regret will occur. Consequently, I suggest, what matters in
determining whether to offer a personally transformative treatment is whether the
patient has sufficiently good reasons for wanting the treatment at the time the decision
is made. What does not matter is how the patient may subsequently be changed by
undergoing the treatment.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | Ethical Theory and Moral Practice |
Volume | 20 |
Issue number | 5 |
Early online date | 04 Nov 2017 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2017 |