Is shared decision-making to blame for the provision of ethically inappropriate treatment? Results of a multi-site study exploring physician understanding of the "shared" model of decision making.

Support for the concept of respect for first-person informed consent and patient autonomy, including the negative right of patients to refuse unwanted interventions has grown, but does not generally include a positive right of patients to receive whatever treatment they request or demand without constraint. Despite this, health-care providers in both Canada and the United States are guilty of providing, in their own opinions, futile or probably futile treatments at the request of patients or their substitute decision-makers. The purpose of this study was to examine whether physicians' understanding of the shared model of medical decision-making - shared decision-making, (SDM) - may be among the reasons why some patients receive treatment understood as ethically inappropriate, including those deemed futile, treatments that are not medically indicated, or those that are not in the patient's best interests to receive. A secondary question asked to study participants was whether they believed their professional college allowed, or further, required them to use shared decision-making in their practice. The initial hypothesis of the researcher in this study was that SDM is not well understood by physicians, and that this lack of understanding, combined with other factors to be discussed in the full text, may result in patients receiving ethically-inappropriate treatment. Results suggest support for this hypothesis, and that SDM should be more closely examined if it is to be pursued as a method of decision making.