What Do We Owe Our Patients? Surgeons' Obligations When Patients are Too Sick for Surgery.

Abstract

As the principle of respect for patient autonomy has gained salience over the past 75 years, surgeons now struggle to resolve conflicts between autonomy and beneficence in certain clinical scenarios. One such conflict occurs when a patient desires a surgical intervention, but the surgeon concludes that the patient is "too sick for surgery" and thus would not benefit from the operation. We provide historical context for the principle of respect for patient autonomy and review recent qualitative data that demonstrate surgeons experience significant moral distress when asked to perform non-beneficial surgery. Thus, we sought to empower surgeons with the appropriate ethical justifications to decline to perform surgery when they believe it would be nonbeneficial or harmful to patients. We outline four concepts that can help surgeons engage with patients, families, and colleagues in these scenarios. First, we describe the term "futility" and explain the difficulty in precisely defining and employing the term in practice. Second, we contrast patients' positive and negative rights, drawing on historical context to argue that patients have robust negative rights but limited positive rights to request non-beneficial interventions. Third, we use the centuries-old notion of medicine as a profession to show that surgeons have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their patients, including and especially when patients request interventions that are not beneficial. Finally, we draw on virtue ethics to give surgeons character-based resources for fulfilling their professional obligations to patients. We contend that surgeons owe their patients the ability to trust that they will always use their knowledge and skills for patients' benefit, even if surgeons must limit patients' autonomy in certain ways to do so.