Skip to main content

We need person-centred ethics in health care.


Ann Clwyd's experience of the shameful way she and her dying husband were treated in hospital should inform us that something awful has gone badly wrong with health care provision.

Occasionally in this blog I get personal. Choices affect us in different ways. Decisions have impact on persons and not an averaged statistic.  I am an advocate of person-centred ethics because I believe that is the only way to build a framework for person-centred care. This is not mere emotion; it is simply a realisation that people have hopes, fears, anxieties, loves, hates, desires; that the impact of decisions on patients is contextual and circumstantial. They have families and loved ones who care too, and they have particular needs that arise as a result. Yet, these are increasingly lost in the dry calculus of  the utilitarian ethics of health care policy. Even the consideration of duty has become driven by calculation rather than imperative (Kant would turn in his grave). Ends become a justification for means regardless of the true meaning of outcome for those who matter, the patient or those in care. Patients become numbers.

We are of course interested in numbers. We tend to set targets by them. Quality is more difficult to measure than quantity. Well-being more difficult than wealth. But we should always look beyond the bare statistic and consider how a policy decision impacts real people and not an average. I have no real idea what an 'average person' looks like. I doubt if an 'average person' exists. You might be 'average' in some calculations but not in many others. The impact of being 'average' in any particular score most often depends on circumstances that are not average; housing, family, relationships, work, stress, but also personality.

A health care system simply charged with obedience to numbers is one that is more likely than not to ignore the individual needs of patients. If patients become a ward statistic to turn around as quickly as possible then nurses will have less time for real patient care. No time for emotional engagement. No time to ensure a continuity of care or of carers; care becomes impersonal; a monetised ingredient. And certainly poor pay, inadequate or non-existent training and low esteem in the privatised care system has produced a cocktail for potential and actual abuse and harm where the needs of the patient take second place in the profit margin. 

But there is another problem with statistics and ethics. It doesn't simply target the 'average'; it often seeks to target those outside the 'norm'. Health care policies often do this too. First identify a group at 'greater risk' then target them. This can be a good strategy but it comes with a distinct problem: how to target an at risk group and avoid stigmatizing that group. This is often the problem when considering genetic risk.

But sometimes targeting the highest risk group is just plain wrong. We might do a calculation that shows the burden per head of the highest risk group is twice the average. These are then targeted; their behaviour is put under scrutiny; the banner headlines of the press target them too. And we all agree we should do something about their behaviour. They are at fault this risk group for adding to the burden on the health services. We might even go so far as to say they shouldn't be treated unless they change their behaviour. They are a disgrace, unethical, a burden. But often they are not; or at least they are not the biggest burden at all. The biggest burden often lies with the greatest number whose risk may be smaller but whose overall aggregate burden to the health service is greater.  Yes, I know, numbers do matter too.


A recent study has shown an increased risk of breast cancer among women who were thin as children. The study is one of many showing an increased risk of adult disease related to nutrition during growth and development in early life. This in turn relates to the nutrition of the mother during pregnancy and as young women.

The developmental origins of health and disease has become a major concern. Development of the embryo and fetus is affected by maternal nutrition and can determine the strategy for growth and metabolism of the fetus. This can have advantages in early life when the metabolism is mapped to the nutritional environment but may increase the risk of disease in adulthood. So nutrition during pregnancy has been linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes in adult life.

One consequence of this knowledge is to shift the focus of public health strategies to the nutrition of young women and their lifestyles. This can have advantages, but it is not without problems or potential harm. Not least of these problems is how this change in focus is achieved. If we want to break the cycle of poverty and disease in the fight against malnutrition in young women, it requires much more than a public health strategy targeting an 'at risk' group. It requires a major change in  global economic and social policies. It requires a broader strategy addressing the circumstances that lead or foster particular behaviours and choices.

Simply telling women that their diet can affect their children later in life, but without giving them the means to act on that information is unethical because it shifts the responsibility of the disease to the women without giving them the means to make a meaningful change. It also creates a new pathology, the pathology of risk. The risk, rather than being viewed as a factor among many is now considered as the underlying cause of the disease. And strategy turns to fixing that which is not yet broken; and in so doing may stigmatize particular groups of women.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …