Intuitionism as a basis for elevating the patients’ voice in shared decision-making
Thursday, October 12, 2023
2:30 PM – 3:45 PM ET
Location: Bristol (Third Floor)
Cases of medical indeterminacy often invite competing intuitions between providers, patients, and families regarding the nature of diagnoses or decisions about life-sustaining treatment. In cases involving brain death or disorders of consciousness, the clinician may override the family’s intuition about whether the patient is alive or the patient’s potential for recovery based on their medical expertise, when in essence the root of these issues lies in differing epistemic and moral intuitions. We argue that the depreciation of intuitionism in clinical and academic contexts can lead to the lack of respect for families’ intuitive judgments about their loved ones’ health status and the requisite treatment decisions. Firstly, medical providers may erroneously frame cases of clinical indeterminacy as scientifically resolved issues and dismiss the family’s intuitions about the patient’s outcome because they lack sufficient medical expertise. Secondly, academic and medical institutions may deem moral intuitionism to be a capricious and unreasoned basis for moral thought, defaulting instead to the theoretical deliberation and expertise of clinicians. In these contexts, we argue that there is a legitimate place for intuitionism in medical decision-making, and that providers ought to respect the family’s intuitions about life, death, and potential for recovery in clinically indeterminate scenarios. Additionally, we argue that usage of moral intuitions in clinical settings allows for a decision-making process that is more accessible to patients, as moral intuitions constitute a shared moral language that is understood by both practitioners and patients and gives the family a greater voice in medical decision-making.
William Choi, MBE – Warren Alpert Medical School – Brown University