Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:46:58.786Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Net Effect: Professional and Ethical Challenges of Medicine Online

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

ARTHUR R. DERSE  and
TRACY E. MILLER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From computerized medical records to databases of pharmacological interactions and automated provisional EKG readings, the emergence of information technology has significantly altered the practice of medicine. Information technology has been widely used to enhance diagnosis and treatment and to improve communication between providers. The advent of the Internet also brings far-reaching implications for patient–physician communication, challenging physicians, patients, and policymakers to consider its impact on the delivery of medical care and the therapeutic relationship. A new set of practices by patients and physicians is unfolding in cyberspace, ranging from the use of e-mail to communicate between physicians and patients in an existing relationship to one-to-one consultations with an anonymous physician and ongoing online treatment, such as psychotherapy. These practices are emerging in both the for-profit and not-for-profit spheres.

Type
Special Section: The Newest Frontier: Ethical Landscapes in Electronic Healthcare
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 453 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Notice posted on an Internet site that provides information and support for mental health issues. Available at http://www.psychcentral.com (accessed 8 Apr 2008).

2 Kassirer JP. Patients, physicians and the Internet. Health Affairs 2000;19(6):115–23.

3 Car J, Sheikh A. Email consultations in health care: 1—Scope and effectiveness. British Medical Journal 2004;329:435–8.

4 Christensen H, Griffiths K. The Internet and mental health practice. Evidence Based Mental Health 2003;6:66–9; Braff D. Going online for therapy lite. Chicago Tribune 16 Mar 2008; available at http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-0316_counsel_page_1_r_k_nmar16,1,4143909.story (accessed 8 Apr 2008).

5 Miller T, Derse AR. Between strangers: The practice of medicine online. Health Affairs 2002;21:168–79.

6 Costello D. The doctor won't see you now. Los Angeles Times 14 Nov 2005; available at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/925785221.html?dids=925785221:925785221&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+14%2C+2005&author=Daniel+Costello&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=F.1&desc=The+doctor+won%27t+see+you+now (accessed 29 May 2008); for example, Teladoc Medical Services; available at http://www.teladoc.com/home.php (accessed 10 Apr 2008). See also, JustAnswerHealth; available at http://health.justanswer.com (accessed 10 Apr 2008).

7 Cleveland Clinic. MyConsult; available at http://www.eclevelandclinic.org/myConsultHome (accessed 8 Apr 2008), and Partners Health Care at http://econsult.partners.org (accessed 10 Apr 2008).

8 Chin T. Insurers to pay for some online consultations. AmNews, 1 May 2006; available at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/05/01/bisc0501.htm (accessed 10 Apr 2008). Also see Freudenheim M. Digital Rx: Take two aspirins and e-mail me in the morning. New York Times 2 Mar 2005; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/02/technology/02online.html (accessed 10 Apr 2008). Health plans paying for online consultation include Anthem Blue Cross, Cigna, and Harvard Pilgrim. Under certain circumstances, Medicare may pay under payment codes approved for telehealth applications. See Glendinning D. Slow connection: Medicare and telehealth. AMNews 3 Sep 2007; available at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/09/03/gvsa0903.htm (accessed 10 Apr 2008).

9 Hubbard WK. Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning, Statement before the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on Internet Drug Sales. 18 Mar 2004; available at http://www.fda.gov/ola/2004/internetdrugs0318.html (accessed 10 Apr 2008). Falco M, Heyman P. Fighting the online drug corner. Washington Post 15 Mar 2008.

10 MDAdvice.com [homepage] available at http://www.mdadvice.com (accessed 19 Feb 2008).

11 Slack W. Cybermedicine: How Computing Empowers Doctors and Patients for Better Health Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1997.

12 Wyatt JC, Sullivan F. eHealth and the future: Promise or peril? British Medical Journal 2005;331:1391–3.

13 Guadagnini C. Online physician communication. Physician's News Digest. Mar 2008, available at http://www.physiciansnews.com/cover/308.html (accessed 11 Apr 2008), quoting a Manhattan Research Survey for first quarter 2007.

14 Harris Interactive Health Care News 2002;2(8); available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/healthnews/HI_HealthCareNews2002Vol2_Iss08.pdf (accessed 11 Apr 2008).

15 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

16 Bauer KA. Home-based telemedicine: A survey of ethical issues. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care Ethics 2001;10:137–46.

17 Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States. Model Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of the Internet in Medical Practice; 2002; available at http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2002_grpol_Use_of_Internet.pdf (accessed 14 Apr 2008); Statements on Telemedicine. New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct. Special Committee on Telemedicine. Revised July 2005; available at http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/opmc/telemedicine.htm (accessed 14 Apr 2008).

18 Salas v. Gamboa, 760 S.W.2d 838, 840 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988).

19 Schanz SJ. Using the Internet for Health Information: Legal Issues. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1999:7.

20 Jones v. J.B. Lippincott Co., 694 F. Supp. 1216 (D. Md. 1988).

21 Roman v. New York, 442 N.Y.S. 334 (Civ. Ct. 1987).

22 Daniel v. Dow Jones & Co., 520 N.Y.S. 334 (Civ. Ct. 1987).

23 DeVille K, Fitzpatrick J. Ready or not, here it comes: The legal, ethical and clinical implications of e-mail communications. Seminars in Pediatric Surgery 2000;9(1):24–34.

24 American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Conflicts of Interest: Guidelines. Opinion 8.03. Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 2006.

25 Blumenthal D. Doctors and drug companies. New England Journal of Medicine 2004;351:1885–90; Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, Blumenthal D, Chimonas SC, Cohen JJ, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA 2006;295:429–33; Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000;283:373–80.

26 Miller TE, Sage WM. Disclosing physician financial incentives. JAMA 1999;281:1424–30.

27 HON Code of Conduct for Medical and Health Web Sites; available at http://www.hon.ch/Conduct.html (accessed 21 Feb 2008). The HON Code, created in 1995, is the most widely displayed honor code on the Internet, though not all sites that display the logo are compliant with the code. See Wanjek C. Attacking their HONor. Some dispute value of logo used to verify accuracy, integrity of health web site contents. Washington Post 20 Apr 2004.

28 According to the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (URAC) Core Standards (v. 1.0). These have since been revised as Core Accreditation Standards (v. 2.0), available to nonmembers of URAC for purchase only ($550) at http://www.urac.org/forms/store/ProductFormPublic/search?action=1&Product_productNumber=HWSv2.0 (accessed 10 Apr 2008).

29 Two other codes were promulgated by now defunct organizations. The Internet Healthcare Coalition under its eHealth Ethics Initiative issued theeHealth Code of Ethics. See http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1761844 (accessed 21 Feb 2008). The Health Internet Ethics (Hi-Ethics), a consortium of organizations issued ethics standards for web sites. See http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1118041 (accessed 11 Apr 2008). Neither addressed disclosure of risks of the medium and delineation of the parameters of the relationship. The eHealth Code of Ethics required disclosure of information of any relationship that a reasonable person would believe would be likely to influence his or her perception of available information, products or services.

30 American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Opinion E-5.026, The Use of Electronic Mail. Issued June 2003, based on the report, Ethical Guidelines for Use of Electronic Mail Between Patients and Physicians. The American Journal of Bioethics 2003;3(3):W43–7.

31 American Medical Association House of Delegates Policy H-120.949. Guidance for Physicians on Internet Prescribing (2008); available at http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-120.949.HTM&&s_t=&st_p=&nth=1&prev_pol=policyfiles/HnE/H-115.997.HTM&nxt_pol=policyfiles/HnE/H-120.943.HTM& (accessed 10 Apr 2008).

32 Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States. Model Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of the Internet in Medical Practice. Section Three. An Appropriate Physician–Patient Relationship; 2002:4; available at http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2002_grpol_Use_of_Internet.pdf (accessed 14 Apr 2008). eRisk Working Group for Healthcare's Guidelines for Online Communication. Principle 4. Pre-Existing Clinician–Patient Relationship; January 2007; available at http://www.medem.com/phy/phy_eriskguidelines.cfm (accessed 11 Apr 2008).

33 Task Force on Medical Informatics. E-mail communication between pediatricians and their patients. Pediatrics 2004;114:317–21; Brooks RG, Menachemi N. Physicians’ use of email with patients: Factors influencing electronic communication and adherence to best practices. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2006;8(1):e2.

34 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

35 Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA 2000;284:1021–7.

36 Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL. Patients looking for information on the Internet and seeking teleadvice—Motivation, expectations, and misconceptions as expressed in e-mails sent to physicians. Archives of Dermatology 1999:135:151–6.

37 Prutkin JM. Cybermedical skills for the internet age. JAMA 2001;285:808.

38 Concern on Health Privacy. UPI poll available at http://www.upi.com/Zogby/UPI_Polls/2007/02/21/upi_poll_concern_on_health_privacy/ (accessed 8 Apr 2008).

39 A new threat to your medical privacy. Consumer Reports Mar 2006; available at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/health-care/electronic-medical-records-306/overview/index.htm (accessed 8 Apr 2008).

40 American Medical Informatics Association and American Health Information Management Association. Statement on Health Information Confidentiality: A Joint Position Statement; July 2006; available at http://www.amia.org/inside/public_policy/docs/amia_ahimajointconfidentialitystatement.pdf (accessed 11 Apr 2008).

41 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights. Standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information. 45 CFR Parts 160 and 164. December 28, 2000 as amended: May 31, 2002, August 14, 2002, February 20, 2003, and April 17, 2003.

42 Goldman J, Hudson Z. Virtually exposed: Privacy and e-health. Health Affairs 2000;19(6):140–8.