This article discusses an example of how the adoption of different theoretical views of the person can have practical implications for the field of bioethics. Patients who agree to receive new medical treatments with little chance of benefit routinely report strong confidence that they will experience benefit. These ‘unrealistic’ expectations are interpreted as false beliefs about treatment, and thus as evidence that the informed consent process has failed. This interpretation of patient reports is consistent with an information-processing framework in which the patient is viewed as transmitting information that enjoys an independent existence in the mental machinery of the person. The perspective of discursive psychology, on the other hand, views the patients’ reports as activities undertaken to achieve specific aims within particular discursive contexts. It is argued that if bioethicists adopt the discursive perspective, some cases of ‘false belief’ might not pose a bioethical problem.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
2.
Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press .
Brundage, M.D., Feldman-Stewart, R., Cosby, R., Gregg, R., Dixon, P., Youssef, Y., et al. (2001). Phase I study of a decision aid for patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer . Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 1326–1335 .
5.
Cicourel, A.V. (1981). The role of cognitive-linguistic concepts in understanding everyday social interactions . Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 87–106 .
6.
Cicourel, A.V. (1986). The reproduction of objective knowledge: Common sense reasoning in medical decision making. In G. B®ohme & N. Stehr (Eds.), The knowledge society (pp. 87–122). Dordrecht: D. Reidel .
7.
Cicourel, A.V. (1987). The interpretation of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters . Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 217–226 .
8.
Comprehensive Working Group on Informed Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials. (1998). Recommendations for the development of informed consent documents for cancer clinical trials. www.cancer.gov/clinical_trials.
9.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constucting the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
10.
Daugherty, C. K. (1999). Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: A medical oncology perspective . Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 1601–1617 .
11.
Daugherty, C., Ratain, M.J., Grochowski, E., Stocking, C., Kodish, E., Mick, R., et al. (1995). Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials . Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13, 1062–1072 .
12.
Faden, R.R., King, N.M.P., & Beauchamp, T.L. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
13.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
14.
Fortin, J.M., Hirota, L.K., Bond, B.E., O’Connor, A.M., & Col, N.F. (2001). Identifying patient preferences for communicating risk estimates: A descriptive pilot study . BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 1, 2 .
15.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge .
16.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
17.
Hacker, P.M.S. (1996). Wittgenstein’s place in twentieth-century analytic philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell .
18.
Hacking, I. (2001). An introduction to probability and inductive logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
19.
Harr¥e, R. (1998). The singular self. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
20.
Harr¥e, R. (2002). Cognitive science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
21.
Harr¥e, R., & Gillett, G. (1994). The discursive mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
22.
Horng, S., Emanuel, E.J., Wilfond, B., Rackoff, J., Martz, K., & Grady, C. (2002). Descriptions of benefits and risks in consent forms for phase I oncology trials . New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 2134–2140 .
23.
Lobb, E.A., Butow, P.N., Kenny, D.T., & Tattersall, M.H. (1999). Communicating prognosis in early breast cancer: Do women understand the language used? Medical Journal of Australia, 171, 290–294 .
24.
Marlaire, C.L., & Maynard, D.W. (1990). Standardized testing as an interactional phenomenon . Sociology of Education, 63, 83–101 .
25.
Meropol, N.J., Weinfurt, K.P., Burnett, C.B., Balshem, A., Benson, A., Castel, L. D., et al. (2003). Perceptions of patients and providers regarding phase I cancer clinical trials: Implications for physician–patient communication . Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 2589–2596 .
26.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., & Thompson, S.A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
27.
O’Connor, A.M. (1989). Effects of framing and level of probability on patients’ preferences for cancer chemotherapy . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 42, 119–126 .
28.
O’Connor, A.M., Fiset, V., Degrasse, C., Graham, I.D., Evans, W., Stacey, D., et al. (1999). Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomes: Evidence of efficacy and policy implications . Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 67–80 .
29.
Ong. L.M., Visser, M.R., Lammes, F.B., van Der Velden, J., Kuenen, B.C., & de Haes, J.C. (2000). Effect of providing cancer patients with the audiotaped initial consultation on satisfaction, recall, and quality of life: A randomized, double-blind study . Journal of Clinical Oncology, 18, 3052–3060 .
30.
Robinson, D.N. (1995). An intellectual history of psychology (3rd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press .
31.
Roche, R.A., Stovall, C.E., Suarez, L., Goldman, D.A., Wright, S.A., & Mendez, C. (1998). Language differences in interpretation of breast cancer health messages . Journal of Cancer Education, 13, 226–230 .
32.
Schaeffer, N.C., & Maynard, D. W. (1996). From paradigm to prototype and back again: Interactive aspects of cognitive processing in standardized survey inter-views. In N. Schwartz & S. Sudman (Eds.), Answering questions (pp. 65–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
33.
Slife, B.D., & Williams, R.N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
34.
Weinfurt, K.P. (2003). Outcomes research related to patient decision making in oncology . Clinical Therapeutics, 25, 671–683 .
35.
Weinfurt, K.P., Sulmasy, D.P., Schulman, K.A., & Meropol, N.J. (2003). Patient expectations of benefit from phase I clinical trials: Linguistic considerations in diagnosing a therapeutic misconception . Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 24, 329–344 .
