02-16-2018 12:28:03 PM -0800
01-23-2018 09:55:12 AM -0800
01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

The Limits of Patient Autonomy

No one these days has a good word to say for paternalism, the notion that someone else not only knows what is best for another person, but that he has the right and even the duty to encourage or make the other person comply with what he thinks is best. Thus one of the sacred principles of contemporary medical ethics is the autonomy of the patient: his right to make an informed decision on what medical treatment, if any, to have, even should his decision be foolish.

In order to uphold the principle of patient autonomy, people in especially vulnerable positions – prisoners, for example – are not to be offered rewards for agreeing either to treatment or to participation in experiments. But evidently there are limits to our belief in patient autonomy.

A paper in the April 19th New England Journal of Medicine describes the effect of giving a single dose of albendazole, a drug that eliminates intestinal parasites such as roundworm and hookworm, to refugees from Africa and Asia before they arrive in the United States. Prior to 1999, such refugees were not given albendazole before departure; thereafter they were.

Administration of the drug decreased the rate of infestation with nematode worms by 77 percent, that is to say from 20.8 per cent of refugees to 4.7 per cent. The trial was not a randomized one, but it is likely that as many African and Asian refugees were originally infested with worms after 1999 as before, and so the large subsequent difference is almost certainly attributable to the administration of the drug.

Interestingly, the authors of the paper, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and the Minnesota Department of Health, do not mention any ethical problems with the mass administration of the drug. The numbers of people treated were large, 27,736 in all.

The treatment seems to have been compulsory; at any rate, it is unlikely that informed consent can really have been sought from many of them, let alone all of them. Besides, if the treatment was not exactly coerced (the refugees could have refused it, even though it meant non-admission to the United States), the situation was similar to that of prisoners rewarded for taking part in medical experiments, a practice that is now forbidden.