Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:23:31.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Aspects of Nondisclosure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Celia J. Orona ,
Barbara A. Koenig  and
Anne J. Davis
Celia J. Orona
Affiliation:
Sociology Department of San Jose State University and an adjunct faculty member of Stanford Geriatric Education Center, Stanford University, Stanford, California
Barbara A. Koenig
Affiliation:
Executive Director of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics and an adjunct assistant professor of Medical Anthropology at the University of California-San Francisco
Anne J. Davis
Affiliation:
Nursing Ethics at the University of California-San Francisco School of Nursing and teaches in the International Cross-cultural Speciality Program at UCSF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A basic assumption in current western medicine is that good healthcare involves informed choices. Indeed, making informed choices is not only viewed as “good practice” but a right to which each individual is entitled, a perspective only recently developed in the medical field.

Moreover, in the case of ethical decisions, much of the discussion on the role of the family is cast within the autonomy paradigm of contemporary bioethics; that is, family members provide emotional support but do not make decisions for the competent adult patient. The family Is uniformly viewed as an Important proxy decision maker for incompetent patients; but most bioethicists would eschew any decision-making role for the family of mentally competent adult patients. Underlying the discussion of autonomy is the basic assumption in western medicine that good healthcare Involves choices by Informed individuals.

Type
Special Section: Cross-cultural Perspectives in Healthcare Ethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , Summer 1994 , pp. 338 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Notes

1. Veatch, RM. Defining the family's role in treatment decisions. Health Progress 1986; 67: 50–2.Google ScholarPubMed

2. Callahan, S. Ethical decision making: a family affair? Health Progress 1988; 69: 22–3.Google ScholarPubMed

3. Munoz, Silva JE, Kjellstrand, CM. Withdrawing life support: do families and physicians decide as patients do? Nephron 1988; 48: 201–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Englehardt, HT Jr. Taking the family seriously: beyond best interests. In: Kopelman, LM, Moskop, JC, eds. Children and Health Care: Moral and Social Issues. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1989: 231–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Thomasma, DC, Pellegrino, ED. The role of the family and physicians in decisions for incompetent patients. Theoretical Medicine 1987; 8: 283–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Brock, DW. The ideal of shared decision making between physicians and patients. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1991; 1: 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Kass, L. Practicing ethics: where's the action? Hastings Center Report 1990; 20: 5–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Siegler, M. Decision analysis and clinical medical ethics: beginning the dialogue. Medical Decision Making 1987; 7: 124–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Barnard, D. Unsung questions of medical ethics. Social Science and Medicine 1985; 21: 243–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Kawaga-Singer, M. Bamboo and Oak: Differences in Adaptation to Cancer between Japanese-American and Anglo-American Patients. (Dissertation). Los Angeles: University of California, 1989.Google Scholar

11. Kawaga-Singer, M. A comparison of the effects of cultural beliefs on adaptation to cancer treatment between Japanese-American and Anglo-American patients. Presented at the American Cancer Society, Conference on Nursing,Atlanta,November 1989.Google Scholar

12. Salcido, RM. Mexican-Americans: illness, death and bereavement. In: Parry, JK, ed. Social Work Practice with the Terminally III. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1990: 99–112.Google Scholar

13. Kurtz, RA, Chalfant, HP. The Sociology of Medicine and Illness. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991.Google Scholar

14. See note 12. Salcido, . 1990:99–112.Google Scholar

15. Kleinman, A, Eisenberg, L, Good, B. Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropological and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine 1978; 88: 251–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Clark, MM. Cultural context of medical practice. Western Journal of Medicine 1983; 139: 811–9.Google ScholarPubMed

17. Qureshi, B. Transcultural Medicine: Dealing with Patients from Different Cultures. Boston: Kluwer Academic, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. See note 10. Kawaga-Singer, . 1989.Google Scholar

19. See note 11. Kawaga-Singer, . 1989.Google Scholar

20. Long, SO, Long, BD. Curable cancers and fatal ulcers: attitudes toward cancer in Japan. Social Science and Medicine 1982; 16: 2101–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21. See note 16. Clark, . 1983; 139: 811–9.Google Scholar

22. Novack, DH, Plumer, R, Smith, RL et al. , Changes in physicians' attitudes toward telling the cancer patient. Journal of the American Medical Association 1979; 241: 897–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. See note 15. Kleinman, , Eisenberg, , Good, . 1978; 88: 251–8.Google Scholar

24. Gordon, DR, Allamini, A. Not to tell, not to know: culture, cancer and communication in Italy. Presented at the American Anthropology Annual Meeting,Washington, D.C.,1989.Google Scholar

25. See note 12. Salcido, . 1990: 99–112.Google Scholar

26. Soto, AR, Villa, J. Una platica: Mexican-American approaches to death and dying. In: Parry, JK, ed. Social Work Practice with the Terminally III. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1990: 113–28.Google Scholar

27. Blustein, J. The family in medical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Report 1993; 23(3): 6–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

28. Blanchard, CG, Labrecque, MS, Ruckdeschel, JC et al. , Information and decision making preferences of hospitalized adult cancer patients. Social Science and Medicine 1988; 27: 1139–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

29. See note 28. Blanchard, , Labrecque, , Ruckdeschel, et al. , 1988;27: 1139–45.Google Scholar

30. See note 27. Blustein, . 1993;23(3): 6–13.Google Scholar

31. Thorne, S. The family cancer experience. Cancer Nursing 1985; 8: 285–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

32. Jennings, B. Ethics and ethnography in neonatal intensive care. In: Weisz, G, ed. Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academics, 1990: 261–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Rasinski-Gregory, DC, Miller, RB, Kutner, FR. Improving hospital ethics committees: cross cultural concerns and their procedural implications. HEC Forum 1989; 1: 137–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

34. Kunstadter, P. Medical ethics in cross-cultural and multi-cultural perspectives. Social Science and Medicine 1980; 14B: 289–96.Google ScholarPubMed

35. Englehardt, HT Jr. Bioethics in pluralist societies. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1982; 26: 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Sturm, D. Contextuality and convenant: the pertinence of social theory and theology to bioethics. In: Shelp, EE, ed. Theology and Bioethics: Exploring the Foundations and Frontiers. Boston: Reidel, 1985: 135–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar