5 found
  1.  23
    Individual Responsibility, Solidarity and Differentiation in Healthcare.I. Stegeman, D. L. Willems, E. Dekker & P. M. Bossuyt - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (11):770-773.
    Objectives Access to healthcare in most western societies is based on equality. Rapidly rising costs have fuelled debates about differentiation in access to healthcare. We assessed the public's perceptions and attitudes about differentiation in healthcare according to lifestyle behaviour. Methods A vignette study was undertaken in participants in a colorectal cancer screening pilot programme in the Netherlands. Screenees with a negative test result received a questionnaire in which nine hypothetical situations were described: three different healthcare settings (screening, lung cancer, chronic (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  16
    Doctor's Views on Disclosing or Withholding Information on Low Risks of Complication.G. G. Palmboom, D. L. Willems, N. B. A. T. Janssen & J. C. J. M. de Haes - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (2):67-70.
    Background: More and more quantitative information is becoming available about the risks of complications arising from medical treatment. In everyday practice, this raises the question whether each and every risk, however low, should be disclosed to patients. What could be good reasons for doing or not doing so? This will increasingly become a dilemma for practitioners.Objective: To report doctors’ views on whether to disclose or withhold information on low risks of complications.Methods: In a qualitative study design, 37 respondents were included. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3.  41
    Balancing Rationalities: Gatekeeping in Health Care.D. L. Willems - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (1):25-29.
    Physicians are increasingly confronted with the consequences of allocation policies. In several countries, physicians have been assigned a gatekeeper role for secondary health care. Many ethicists oppose this assignment for several reasons, concentrating on the harm the intrusion of societal arguments would inflict on doctor-patient relations. It is argued that these arguments rest on a distinction of spheres of values and of rationality, without taking into account the mixing of values and rationalities that takes place in everyday medical practice. If (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4.  28
    Under What Conditions Do Patients Want to Be Informed About Their Risk of a Complication? A Vignette Study.N. B. A. T. Janssen, F. J. Oort, P. Fockens, D. L. Willems, H. C. J. M. de Haes & E. M. A. Smets - 2009 - Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (5):276-282.
    Background: Discussing treatment risks has become increasingly important in medical communication. Still, despite regulations, physicians must decide how much and what kind of information to present. Objective: To investigate patients’ preference for information about a small risk of a complication of colonoscopy, and whether medical and personal factors contribute to such preference. To propose a disclosure policy related to our results. Design: Vignettes study. Setting: Department of Gastroenterology, Academic Medical Centre, the Netherlands. Patients: 810 consecutive colonoscopy patients. Intervention: A home-sent (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  4
    Context-Relative Norms Determine the Appropriate Type of Consent in Clinical Biobanks: Towards a Potential Solution for the Discrepancy Between the General Data Protection Regulation and the European Data Protection Board on Requirements for Consent.R. Indrakusuma, S. Kalkman, M. J. W. Koelemay, R. Balm & D. L. Willems - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3271-3284.
    Clinical biobanks processing data of participants in the European Union fall under the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation, which among others includes requirements for consent. These requirements are further specified by the Article 29 Working Party —an EU advisory body currently known as the European Data Protection Board. Unfortunately, their guidance is cause for some confusion. While the GDPR allows participants to give broad consent for research when specific research purposes are still unknown, the WP29 guidelines suggest that (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation