IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v146y2017i4d10.1007_s10551-016-3042-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Therapy, Enhancement, and Medicine: Challenges for the Doctor–Patient Relationship and Patient Safety

Author

Listed:
  • James J. Delaney

    (Niagara University)

  • David Martin

    (Mayo Clinic)

Abstract

There are ethical guidelines that form the foundation of the traditional doctor–patient relationship in medicine. Health care providers are under special obligations to their patients. These include obligations to disclose information, to propose alternative treatments that allow patients to make decisions based on their own values, and to have special concern for patients’ best interests. Furthermore, patients know that these obligations exist and so come to their physicians with a significant level of trust. In this sense, therapeutic medicine significantly differs from straightforward business practices such as the buying and selling of houses, cars, cell phones, etc. However, we argue that this relationship differs when medicine is used for enhancement rather than therapy. When patients seek enhancements they are not as vulnerable as when they are ill. And in an enhancement setting, physicians have little role outside of medical risks to discuss motivation and alternatives. Therefore, we conclude that a more reasonable alternative may be for doctors and patients to use ethical norms associated more with straightforward business practices, specifically sales. We believe that full disclosure of this different set of norms will benefit both physicians and patients.

Suggested Citation

  • James J. Delaney & David Martin, 2017. "Therapy, Enhancement, and Medicine: Challenges for the Doctor–Patient Relationship and Patient Safety," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 146(4), pages 831-844, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:146:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3042-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3042-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-016-3042-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-016-3042-9?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holley, David M., 2002. "Alternative Approaches to Applied Ethics: A Response to Carson’s Critique," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 73-82, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      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:kap:jbuset:v:146:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3042-9. 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.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

      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.