Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:49:20.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Autonomy and Paternalism in Health Policy: Currents in Contemporary Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the United States the delivery of health care traditionally has been hierarchical and strictly controlled by physicians. Physicians typically provided patients with little information about their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plan; patients were expected to follow their physicians’ orders and ask no questions. Beginning in the 1970s, with the widespread adoption of the doctrine of informed consent to treatment, the physician-patient relationship began to be more collaborative, although the extent of the change has been subject to debate. At a minimum, physicians began to give patients more information and asked them to consent to recommended treatment, the therapeutic privilege to withhold information from patients lost support and eventually was repudiated, and physicians embraced — at least in theory — a more patient-centered conception of health care.

More recently, health care and health promotion activities have moved beyond clinical encounters and the strict confines of physician-patient interactions.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , Winter 2014 , pp. 590 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2014

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

See generally Rothman, D. J., Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Ethics Transformed Medical Decision Making (BasicBooks, 1977).Starr, P., The Social Transformation of American Medicine (1982).Google Scholar
Katz, J., The Silent World of Doctor and Patient (The Free Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Id., at 71–84.Google Scholar
The therapeutic privilege permitted physicians to withhold information from patients if, in their clinical judgment, disclosure would be harmful to the patient “medically contraindicated”). In 2006, the American Medical Association declared that withholding information from patients was ethically unacceptable. American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics (2012–2013 edition) § 8.082 – Withholding Information from Patients (2012).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Epstein, R. M. Street, R. L.Jr., “The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care,” Annals of Family Medicine 9, no. 2(2011): 100–103.“Symposium – Patient-Centered Law and Ethics,” Wake Forest Law Review 45, no. 5: 1429–1564(2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Internet Project, Health Online 2013, available at <www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-on-line-2013>(last visited April 23, 2014).(last+visited+April+23,+2014).>Google Scholar
Ginsburg, J.et al, “Detecting Influenza Epidemics Using Search Engine Query Data,” Nature 457, no. 7232(2009): 1012–1014. A follow-up paper concluded that the Google researchers estimated almost twice as many flu cases as the CDC.Butler, D., “When Google Got Flu Wrong,” Nature 494, no. 7436(2013): 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., <www.patientslikeme.com>(last visited December 5, 2014).(last+visited+December+5,+2014).>Google Scholar
Frist, W. H., “Connected Health and the Rise of the Patient-Consumer,” Health Affairs 33, no. 2(2014): 191–193.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, Mobile Medical Applications, October 2013, available at <http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/connectedhealth/mobilemedicalapplications/default.htm>(last visited December 5, 2014).(last+visited+December+5,+2014).>Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 300gg-4(j)(3)(A) (2012).Implementing regulations appear at 26 C.F.R. § 54.9802–1(f)(2)(i) (2014).29 C.F.R. § 2590.702(f)(2)(i) (2013).45 C.F.R. § 146.121(f)(2)(i) (2013).Google Scholar
“Minimum essential coverage” for health insurance is required by section 1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(f) (2012).The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act prohibits health plans that fail to contain essential elements. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § 1302, 42 U.S.C. § 18022.Google Scholar
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) § 13400(5), 42 U.S.C. § 300jj(13).Google Scholar
Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act) § 13400(11), 42 U.S.C. § 17921(5).Google Scholar
National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, Letter to Levitt, Michael O., Secretary of Health and Human Services, September 9, 2005, available at <http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/050909>(last visited December 5, 2014).see also Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, “Personal Health Records and the HIPAA Privacy Rule,” (undated), available at <www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/healthit/phrs.pdf>(last visited December 5, 2014).(last+visited+December+5,+2014).see+also+Department+of+Health+and+Human+Services,+Office+for+Civil+Rights,+“Personal+Health+Records+and+the+HIPAA+Privacy+Rule,”+(undated),+available+at+(last+visited+December+5,+2014).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., National Committee on Vital and Statistics Health “Information for Health: A Strategy for Building the National Health Information Infrastructure” (2001), available at <http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/nhiilayo.pdf>(last visited December 5, 2014).(last+visited+December+5,+2014).>Google Scholar
Turley, M.et al, “Association Between Personal Health Record Enrollment and Patient Loyalty,” American Journal of Managed Care 18, no. 7(2012): e248-e–253.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 1302, 1395hh.Google Scholar
The meaningful use criteria are codified at 45 C.F.R. Part 170. See generally Terry, N. P., “Meaningful Adoption: What We Know or Think We Know about the Financing, Effectiveness, Quality, and Safety of Electronic Medical Records,” Journal of Legal Medicine 34, no. 1(2013): 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Register 79 (February 6, 2014): 7290.Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. § 493.1291(f) (2013).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 164.524(a)(1)(iii) (2013).Google Scholar
The amended regulation preempts state laws prohibiting the release of a laboratory report to the individual. Federal Register 79 (2014): 7290, 7292.Google Scholar
Federal Register 79 (2014): 7290, 7293.Google Scholar
See Federal Register 76 (2011): 56712, 56720.Google Scholar
Su, P., “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing: A Comprehensive View,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 88, no. 2(2013): 359–365, 361.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, Statement of Jeffrey Shuren. Director for the Center of Devices and Radiological Health before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, July 22, 2010, available at <http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/testimony/ucm219925.htm>(last visited December 5, 2014).see also Pollack, Andrew, “FDA Faults Companies on Unapproved Genetic Tests,” New York Times, June 11, 2010, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/health/12genome.html?_r=0>(last visited December 5, 2014).(last+visited+December+5,+2014).see+also+Pollack,+Andrew,+“FDA+Faults+Companies+on+Unapproved+Genetic+Tests,”+New+York+Times,+June+11,+2010,+(last+visited+December+5,+2014).>Google Scholar
See, e.g., Steenhuysen, J., “Consumer Gene Test Results Misleading: U.S. Probe,” Reuters, July 22, 2010, available at <http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/22/us-gene-tests-hearing-idUSTRE66L5QF20100722>(last visited December 5, 2014) (explaining that the company Pathway Genomics stopped selling its genetic tests directly to consumers since direct-to-consumer genetic testing came under scrutiny from the FDA).(last+visited+December+5,+2014)+(explaining+that+the+company+Pathway+Genomics+stopped+selling+its+genetic+tests+directly+to+consumers+since+direct-to-consumer+genetic+testing+came+under+scrutiny+from+the+FDA).>Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, Paving the Way for Personalized Medicine: FDA's Role in a New Era of Medical Product Development, October 2013, available at <http://www.fda.gov/downloads/scienceresearch/specialtopics/personalizedmedicine/ucm37242.pdf>(last visited December 5, 2014).(last visited December 5, 2014).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Food+and+Drug+Administration,+Paving+the+Way+for+Personalized+Medicine:+FDA's+Role+in+a+New+Era+of+Medical+Product+Development,+October+2013,+available+at+(last+visited+December+5,+2014).>Google Scholar
Annas, G. J. Elias, S., “23andMe and the FDA,” New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 11(2014): 985–988, 986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Lederer, A.et al, “Toward a Healthier City: Nutrition Standards for New York City Government,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46, no. 4(2014): 423–428 (discussing procedures used to develop various proposals to improve nutrition in New York City).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.Y. City Health Code § 81.53. For more information on the adoption of the amendment implementing the Portion Cap Rule, see the Notice of an Adoption of an Amendment, available at <http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/notice/2012/notice-adoption-amend-article81.pdf>..>Google Scholar
N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 653584/12, 2013 WL 1343607, at *8 (N.Y. App. Div., March 11, 2013).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Shelley, D.et al, “Same Strategy Different Industry: Corporate Influence on Public Policy,” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 4(2014): e9–e11 (comparing soft drink and restaurant industry response to the rule with the strategies of the tobacco industry).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., DeMaria, A. N., “The Nanny State and ‘Coercive Paternalism,’” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 61, no. 20(2013): 2108–2109 (editorial of cardiology journal editor decrying paternalism).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New York State Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 970 N.Y.S.2d 200 (App. Div. 2013).Google Scholar
In re N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2014 LEXIS 1442 (N.Y., June 26, 2014).Google Scholar
See Gostin, L. O., “Bloomberg's Health Legacy: Urban Innovator or Meddling Nanny,” Hastings Center Report 43, no. 5(2013): 19–25 (asserting that aggressive public health measures are justified).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kerkhoff, A. H. M., “Origin of Modern Public Health and Preventive Medicine,” in Doxiadis, S., ed., Ethical Dilemmas in Health Promotion (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987) (stating that public health is based on paternalism).Google Scholar
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11,. 25–26 (1905).Google Scholar
See Gostin, , supra note 39.Google Scholar
Jacobson, P. D. Parmet, W. E., “Defending Public Health Regulations: The Message Is the Medium,” Hastings Center Report 44, no. 1(2014): 4–6, at 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar