How stable are moral judgements? A longitudinal study of context dependency in attitudes towards patient responsibility

Abstract

BackgroundWhether patients' life-style should involve lower priority for treatment is a controversial question in bioethics. Less is known about clinicians' views.AimTo study how clinical doctors' attitudes to questions of patient responsibility and priority vary over time.MethodSurveys of doctors in Norway in 2008, 2014, 2021. Questionnaires included statements about patients' lifestyle's significance for priority to care, and vignettes of priority cases (only in 2014).ResultsAttitudes were fairly stable between 2008 and 2021. 17%/14% agreed that patients' lifestyle should count, while 19%/22% agreed that it should involve lower priority to scarce organs. 42/44% agreed that smokers should have lower priority. Substantially more agreed in 2014. Regression analyses showed that being male, working in hospital, and younger age increased the likelihood of agreeing.ConclusionA substantial minority of doctors agreed that lifestyle should be a priority criterion, possibly contrary to Norwegian legislation and professional ethics. The finding might be explained by the unspecified meaning of priority, increased scarcity-awareness, or socio-cultural trends towards individualism. The 2014 results indicate a framing effect; the vignettes may have primed the respondents towards accepting lifestyle as a criterion. We conclude that attitudes to normative questions are unstable and depend on context. A substantial minority of doctors seems to be positive to deprioritizing patients allegedly responsible for their illness. However, what deprioritization implies in practice is not clear.