The "therapeutic obligation" (TO) is a physician's duty to provide his patients with what he believes is the best available treatment. We begin by discussing some prominent formulations of the obligation before raising two related considerations against those formulations. First, they do not make sense of cases where doctors are permitted to provide suboptimal care. Second, they give incorrect results in cases where doctors are choosing treatments in challenging epistemic environments. We then propose and defend an account of the therapeutic obligation that solves the problems that undermined previous efforts at formulating the TO. We conclude by considering how apparent problems with our proposal actually rest on difficulties with informed consent.
|Number of pages||20|
|Journal||Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (United Kingdom)|
|State||Published - Feb 1 2014|
- randomized clinical trials
- suboptimal treatment options
- therapeutic obligation