Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Isobel Ross rightly points out that providing information is not enough to guarantee that patients will choose the best course of action. She argues that to adequately protect patients' interests, we need practice guidelines to 'ensure that dangerous and unnecessarily risky procedures are excluded from practice'. What constitutes an 'unnecessarily risky procedure' is to be determined by a group of reasonable doctors. At one point, Ross suggests that such guidelines are 'presumptive' rather than 'absolute'. But this is really a concession to patient variability. She intends that certain procedures are ruled out on paternalistic grounds. I will argue that practice guidelines are desirable but should not determine practice. We should not rule out procedures on paternalistic grounds.


Journal article



Publication Date





323 - 330


Professional Patient Relationship, Communication, Consensus, Decision Making, Disclosure, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Freedom, General Surgery, Guidelines as Topic, Health Care Rationing, Humans, Informed Consent, Medicine, Methods, Paternalism, Patient Care, Patients, Personal Autonomy, Physician-Patient Relations, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Professional Autonomy, Professional Competence, Reference Standards, Resource Allocation, Risk, Risk Assessment, Social Values, Specialization