Bioethics Discussion Blog: Making Clinical Ethical Decisions: Common Fallacies: 3. False Dichotomy

REMINDER: I AM POSTING A NEW TOPIC ABOUT ONCE A WEEK OR PERHAPS TWICE A WEEK. HOWEVER, IF YOU DON'T FIND A NEW TOPIC POSTED, THERE ARE AS OF MARCH 2013 OVER 900 TOPIC THREADS TO WHICH YOU CAN READ AND WRITE COMMENTS. I WILL BE AWARE OF EACH COMMENTARY AND MAY COME BACK WITH A REPLY.

TO FIND A TOPIC OF INTEREST TO YOU ON THIS BLOG, SIMPLY TYPE IN THE NAME OR WORDS RELATED TO THE TOPIC IN THE FIELD IN THE LEFT HAND SIDE AT TOP OF THE PAGE AND THEN CLICK ON “SEARCH BLOG”. WITH WELL OVER 900 TOPICS, MOST ABOUT GENERAL OR SPECIFIC ETHICAL ISSUES BUT NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO ANY SPECIFIC DATE OR EVENT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND WHAT YOU WANT. IF YOU DON’T PLEASE WRITE TO ME ON THE FEEDBACK THREAD OR BY E-MAIL DoktorMo@aol.com

IMPORTANT REQUEST TO ALL WHO COMMENT ON THIS BLOG: ALL COMMENTERS WHO WISH TO SIGN ON AS ANONYMOUS NEVERTHELESS PLEASE SIGN OFF AT THE END OF YOUR COMMENTS WITH A CONSISTENT PSEUDONYM NAME OR SOME INITIALS TO HELP MAINTAIN CONTINUITY AND NOT REQUIRE RESPONDERS TO LOOK UP THE DATE AND TIME OF THE POSTING TO DEFINE WHICH ANONYMOUS SAID WHAT. Thanks. ..Maurice

FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK,FEEDBACK! WRITE YOUR FEEDBACK ABOUT THIS BLOG, WHAT IS GOOD, POOR AND CONSTRUCTIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO THIS FEEDBACK THREAD

Friday, July 22, 2011

Making Clinical Ethical Decisions: Common Fallacies: 3. False Dichotomy

False dichotomy is where, in formulating a decision, the decision is based on a belief of “all or none” and forgetting that there may be a middle ground. Not all decisions need to be made as “black vs white” since often there are shades of “gray”, that middle ground.

This concept is particularly important in clinical ethics consultations where in most cases decisions are not emergent. Yes, in an emergency room environment, often decisions regarding diagnosis and therapy need to be made promptly without time available to philosophize over an issue and either something specific in therapy is done or something is not done. In contrast, by the time an issue of management comes to the hospital ethics committee consultation there may be a sense of urgency to some but in most cases there is time to look at and consider the whole clinical, ethical and legal picture in order to come to a satisfactory conclusion. And what first comes to the table as a decision for either a “this” or a “that” may actually during discussion find some middle decision as the most viable and beneficent solution. This finding of a “middle ground” is one of the functions of an ethics committee consult and is part of the process of mediation of conflicts.

As an example, a 75 year old man with chronic emphysema and diabetes who has had a massive stroke and is still unconscious in the critical care unit of the hospital after 2 weeks and there is advice by the attending physician that the patient should undergo a tracheotomy (semi-permanent opening to the windpipe for breathing) since he is expected to continue on the ventilator for a unknown period of time. Also at this time a tube inserted into the abdomen and entering the stomach (PEG procedure) was the professional advice for longer term feeding and hydration. One son sitting at a hospital ethics committee consultation agreed with the advice of the physician. He wants these procedures performed since he wants to continue life-supportive treatment to continue until his father recovers. Another son with whom the father had lived since the mother had died a few years earlier present at the meeting argued against these procedures. He said that his father would never awaken and if he did he would not want to be alive after such a stroke. The son wanted the ventilator to be turned off even if it meant the death of his father. A neurologist on the case presented her opinion that the current 2 weeks duration might be too soon to make a judgment about the prognosis though it was probably poor and if the patient survived he might continue either in a persistent vegetative state or profoundly neurologically impaired. So the possible decisions would seem to be 1) continue with supportive therapy, do a tracheotomy and PEG or 2) terminate life-support now. But this is where overriding the “false dichotomy” comes in: there is a middle ground which was offered by the ethics committee. The neurologist told the family that she might be able to give a more accurate prognosis on examining the patient in one or two weeks. The attending physician said that the ideal time to perform the procedures was now but he would wait for a week or two more but not much longer. The ethics committee suggested to both sons that a compromise of having a followup ethics meeting in 10 days after the patient was evaluated at that time may be the best decision at present. This also provided time for each son to re-evaluate his position on a final decision. This middle ground satisfied all parties who were present and they all shook hands as they left the meeting.

If this was your father and the physicians were in agreement with the conclusion of the consult would you too be satisfied that it was not necessary to have the decision end if not the one way then the other? ..Maurice.

2 Comments:

At Saturday, July 23, 2011 8:11:00 PM, Blogger tommayo said...

Dr. Mo - I couldn't agree more with your observation that speed is often the enemy of good ethics and that "ethics emergencies" (outside the actual ED) are few and far between. I sometimes think the best service I can provide as an ethics consultant is to slow things down, get everyone to take a deep breath, take a little addition time (and, often, get some additional facts) and reassess options (which often come pre-packaged as false dichotomies) that may prove to include a good middle ground acceptable to all. Maybe, as some have suggested, this is ethics "mediation" rather than ethics "consultation." So be it. There's a lot of wisdom in the words, " Don't just do something: stand there!"

Tom Mayo, Dallas

 
At Tuesday, September 27, 2011 10:12:00 AM, Blogger Doug Capra said...

A common example one finds when arguing the modesty and gender issues is this:
"The most important issue is getting the best care" -- as if you can't have both gender choice and the best care. Not to say there are never problems with this -- but the two conditions are not mutually exclusive.
Doug Capra

 

Post a Comment

<< Home