Elsevier

Social Science & Medicine

Volume 56, Issue 7, April 2003, Pages 1595-1604
Social Science & Medicine

The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00159-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Calls to respect patient autonomy and produce patient-centered outcomes have recently brought the patient's point of view back into the center of clinical medicine. Bioethics has argued that patient values must be respected in health care decisions. But it has generally not questioned medicine's goals, including its definition of health. For bioethics, health has remained an objective biological fact. However, pressures to improve the cost-effectiveness of medical care have increased interest in the subjective health and quality of life of patients. Perceived health, health-related quality of life, and health-state utilities bring health assessment progressively closer to the patient's perspective. Now even death's harm to patients is qualified by the value patients place on their health state. Medicine's epidemiological transition from acute to chronic disease is thus prompting an epistemological transition from primarily objective to primarily subjective evidence of health and health care effectiveness. Now some of the most important patient outcomes, like patient choices before them, are valid because they are subjective. Pathophysiology is appropriately becoming a means to produce health as it is defined from the patient's point of view. The physicians’ job description will be changed to focus on patients’ lives rather than patients’ bodies. Definitive evaluations of medical effectiveness will occur within patients’ lives rather than within doctors’ hospitals. This further incorporation of patient subjectivity should carry us well beyond informed consent and the other protections for patient autonomy bequeathed to us by bioethics.

Section snippets

Introduction: from saving lives to improving lives

While the ongoing social transformation of American medicine is well recognized, a parallel transformation of medicine's clinical goals and scientific method is less well recognized. Bioethics has pointed to the importance of the patient's point of view in health care decisions through its call to respect patient autonomy. Facts known only by physicians need to be supplemented by values known only by patients. Outcomes research has pointed to the importance of the patient's point of view on the

Informed consent for research

Gradually after World War II, it was recognized that physician good will was not sufficient guidance in clinical research or clinical care of patients. Bioethics grew up around the insight that respect for patient autonomy was an essential part of respecting patients. Patients were not just bodies to be studied and healed however benevolently, but persons with values and the capacity for choice. But it has been a hard fought battle to bring patient subjectivity into medical decision making.

It

From costs to effectiveness to outcomes

Outcomes research grew from many seeds. I will mention only a few important ones from the late 1980s. William Roper, head of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) in the late 1980s, was interested in improving the efficiency of Medicare. He explained in 1988 that the first decade of Medicare had been about increasing access, the second decade about decreasing cost, and the third decade was going to be about increasing value. He argued that medical care quality assurance needed to move

From objective to subjective health

Through clinico-pathological correlation, modern medicine has strived for a fully objective view of death and disease. This view was claimed to be so unbiased as to represent a “perspectiveless” view. Philosopher Thomas Nagel (1999) has called this scientific ideal “the view from nowhere”. To advocate patient-centered outcomes as the primary measure of medical interventions is to accept “perspective” as unavoidable in clinical medical science. It is to reject the ideal of completely objective

Conclusion: accepting perspective in medicine

Modern medical science has been anchored by death. Death has provided medicine a “value-free” enemy. Society monitored medicine's progress with mortality reduction rates. Medical research has focused on conquering the diseases that cause death (Callahan, 2000). Death also provided a “value-free” and objective perspective on patient illness. Death revealed the definitive objective diagnosis through the autopsy and clinico-pathological correlation. Disease could be observed through death's eyes

References (50)

  • D. Callahan

    The sanctity of life

  • D. Callahan

    Death and the research imperative

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (2000)
  • P.C. Cleary

    The increasing importance of patient surveys

    British Medical Journal

    (1999)
  • N. Daniels

    Just health care

    (1985)
  • M.A. Davis et al.

    Correlates of knee pain among US adults with and without radiographic knee osteoarthritis

    Journal of Rheumatology

    (1992)
  • J.R. Elkington

    Medicine and the quality of life

    Annals of Internal Medicine

    (1966)
  • P.M. Ellwood

    Shattuck Lecture Outcomes managementA technology of patient experience

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (1988)
  • H.T. Engelhardt

    The foundations of bioethics

    (1986)
  • A. Feinstein

    Clinimetrics

    (1987)
  • Field, M.J., & Gold, M.R. (Eds.). (1998). Summarizing population health: Directions for the development and application...
  • Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic (p. 129). New York:...
  • T.M. Gill et al.

    A critical appraisal of the quality of Quality of Life Instruments

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1994)
  • J.S. Goodwin

    Geriatrics and the limits of modern medicine

    New England Journal of Medicine

    (1999)
  • G.H. Guyatt et al.

    Health status, quality of life and the individual

    Journal of the American Medical Association

    (1994)
  • A. Jonsen

    Birth of bioethics

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text