Comparative Risk: Good or Bad Heuristic?

American Journal of Bioethics 16 (5):20-22 (2016)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Some experts have argued that patients facing certain types of choices should not be told whether their risk is above or below average, because this information may trigger a bias (Fagerlin et al. 2007). But careful consideration shows that the comparative risk heuristic can usefully guide decisions and improve their quality or rationality. Building on an earlier paper of mine (Schwartz 2009), I will argue here that doctors and decision aids should provide comparative risk information to patients, even while further research is conducted.

Similar books and articles

Patients, doctors and risk attitudes.Nicholas Makins - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (11):737-741.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-04-26

Downloads
553 (#34,985)

6 months
138 (#32,516)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter H. Schwartz
Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Autonomy and Personal History.John Christman - 1991 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):1 - 24.
Why heuristics work.Gerd Gigerenzer - 2008 - Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (1):20-29.
Formal and effective autonomy in healthcare.A. P. Schwab - 2006 - Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (10):575-579.

Add more references