Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Two-Headed Physician

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Behavioral Economics and Bioethics

Part of the book series: Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics ((PABE))

  • 603 Accesses

Abstract

When compassion and the Hippocratic Oath pull Dr. Smith in different directions, Dr. Smith finds a compromise. Dr. Smith acts as the arbiter in bargaining. Knowing this, a patient can take any of three steps to influence the physician’s decision: (1) reduce dependency on the physician by gaining access to palliative care; (2) find a physician who has a lot of compassion for patients; and (3) go with an experienced general practitioner, rather than a specialist.

This chapter is largely based on Lee (2008).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See O’Brien et al. (1995), and Fried et al. (2002).

  2. 2.

    See Patrick et al. (1997), Hammes and Rooney (1998), Covinsky et al. (2000), Fried et al. (2002), and Rietjens et al. (2005).

  3. 3.

    See Danis et al. (1994), Hammes and Rooney (1998), Carmel and Mutran (1999), and Ditto et al. (2003).

  4. 4.

    Hamermesh and Soss (1974) explain suicide by a declining utility.

  5. 5.

    This explains why the physician does not have the incentive to be totally forthright with the patient about prognosis. Christakis (1999) has observed that physicians, when confronting dying patients, do not like to prognosticate. This is consistent with the finding that, when provided prognostic information from a state-of-the-art statistical model, most physicians simply ignore it (SUPPORT 1995).

References

  • Carmel, Sarah, and Elizabeth Mutran. “Stability of Elderly Persons’ Expressed Preferences Regarding the Use of Life-Sustaining Treatments.” Social Science and Medicine, 49 (3), August 1999, pp. 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, Nicholas A. Death Foretold: Prophecy and Prognosis in Medical Care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covinsky, Kenneth E., et al. “Communication and Decision-Making in Seriously Ill Patients: Findings of the Support Project.” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48 (5), Supplement (May 2000), pp. S187–S193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danis, M., J. Garrett, R. Harris, and D. L. Patrick. “Stability of Choices About Life-Sustaining Treatments.” Annals of Internal Medicine, 120 (7), 1 April 1994, pp. 567–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditto, Peter H., et al. “Stability of Older Adults’ Preferences for Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment.” Health Psychology, 22 (6), November 2003, pp. 605–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, Terri R., Elizabeth H. Bradley, Virginia R. Towle, and Heather Allore. “Understanding the Treatment Preferences of Seriously Ill Patients.” New England Journal of Medicine, 346 (14), 4 April 2002, pp. 1061–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, Daniel S., and Neal M. Soss. “An Economic Theory of Suicide.” Journal of Political Economy, 82 (1), January/February 1974, pp. 83–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammes, B. J., and B. L. Rooney. “Death and End-of-Life Planning in One Midwestern Community.” Archives of Internal Medicine, 158 (4), 1998, 383–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Li Way. “Compassion and the Hippocratic Oath.” Journal of Socio-Economics, 37 (5), October 2008, pp. 1724–1728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. Duncan, and Howard Raiffa. Games and Decisions. New York: Wiley, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, L. A., J. A. Grisso, G. Maislin, K. LaPann, K. P. Krotki, P. J. Greco, E. A. Siegert, and L. K. Evans. “Nursing Home Residents’ Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatments.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 274 (22), 1995, pp. 1775–1779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick, Donald L., Robert A. Pearlman, Helene E. Starks, Kevin C. Cain, William G. Cole, and Richard F. Uhlmann. “Validation of Preferences for Life-Sustaining Treatment: Implications for Advance Care Planning.” Annals of Internal Medicine, 127 (7), 1997, pp. 509–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rietjens, Judith, Agnes van der Heide, Elsbeth Voogt, Bregie D. Onweteaka-Philipsen, Paul J. van der Maas, and Gerrit van der Wal. “Striving for Quality or Length at the End-of-Life: Attitudes of the Dutch General Public.” Patient Education and Counseling, 59 (2), November 2005, pp. 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • SUPPORT Principal Investigators. “A Controlled Trial to Improve Care for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 274 (20), 22/29 November 1995, pp. 1591–1598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veatch, Robert. M. A Theory of Medical Ethics. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Li Way Lee

Authors
  1. Li Way Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Way Lee .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lee, L.W. (2018). The Two-Headed Physician. In: Behavioral Economics and Bioethics. Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89779-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation