"Buying-in" and "cashing-out": Patients' experience and the refusal of life-prolonging treatment

Nathan Scheiner, Joan Liaschenko

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Surgical "buy-in" is an "informal contract between surgeon and patient in which the patient not only consents to the operative procedure but commits to the post-operative surgical care anticipated by the surgeon."1 Surgeons routinely assume that patients wish to undergo treatment for operative complications so that the overall treatment course is "successful," as in the treatment of a post-operative infection. This article examines occasions when patients buy-in to a treatment course that carries risk of complication, yet refuse treatment when complications arise. We coin this counter-phenomenon "cashing-out." Cashing-out may elicit negative feelings among careproviders. We question why patients or families may wish to cash-out. One reason may be the changing epistemological position of patients as they experience a complication. The shift from the hypothetical discussion of complications during the initial informed-consent process to the experience of having a complication represents new knowledge. Patients and families may use this knowledge as the basis to revoke consent for some or all of the remaining treatment course. This article seeks to understand cashing-out in terms of the patients' experiences. We hope to prompt recognition of this phenomenon across medical contexts and to provide impetus for further work to understand why patients may wish to cash-out.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)15-19
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Ethics
Volume29
Issue number1
StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

Fingerprint

Life Change Events
experience
Therapeutics
knowledge
Numismatics
Operative Surgical Procedures
Contracts
Informed Consent
Emotions
Infection

Cite this

"Buying-in" and "cashing-out" : Patients' experience and the refusal of life-prolonging treatment. / Scheiner, Nathan; Liaschenko, Joan.

In: Journal of Clinical Ethics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 01.03.2018, p. 15-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{c7c8b16de73546e187ac694395e36f54,
title = "{"}Buying-in{"} and {"}cashing-out{"}: Patients' experience and the refusal of life-prolonging treatment",
abstract = "Surgical {"}buy-in{"} is an {"}informal contract between surgeon and patient in which the patient not only consents to the operative procedure but commits to the post-operative surgical care anticipated by the surgeon.{"}1 Surgeons routinely assume that patients wish to undergo treatment for operative complications so that the overall treatment course is {"}successful,{"} as in the treatment of a post-operative infection. This article examines occasions when patients buy-in to a treatment course that carries risk of complication, yet refuse treatment when complications arise. We coin this counter-phenomenon {"}cashing-out.{"} Cashing-out may elicit negative feelings among careproviders. We question why patients or families may wish to cash-out. One reason may be the changing epistemological position of patients as they experience a complication. The shift from the hypothetical discussion of complications during the initial informed-consent process to the experience of having a complication represents new knowledge. Patients and families may use this knowledge as the basis to revoke consent for some or all of the remaining treatment course. This article seeks to understand cashing-out in terms of the patients' experiences. We hope to prompt recognition of this phenomenon across medical contexts and to provide impetus for further work to understand why patients may wish to cash-out.",
author = "Nathan Scheiner and Joan Liaschenko",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "15--19",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Ethics",
issn = "1046-7890",
publisher = "Journal of Clinical Ethics",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - "Buying-in" and "cashing-out"

T2 - Patients' experience and the refusal of life-prolonging treatment

AU - Scheiner, Nathan

AU - Liaschenko, Joan

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Surgical "buy-in" is an "informal contract between surgeon and patient in which the patient not only consents to the operative procedure but commits to the post-operative surgical care anticipated by the surgeon."1 Surgeons routinely assume that patients wish to undergo treatment for operative complications so that the overall treatment course is "successful," as in the treatment of a post-operative infection. This article examines occasions when patients buy-in to a treatment course that carries risk of complication, yet refuse treatment when complications arise. We coin this counter-phenomenon "cashing-out." Cashing-out may elicit negative feelings among careproviders. We question why patients or families may wish to cash-out. One reason may be the changing epistemological position of patients as they experience a complication. The shift from the hypothetical discussion of complications during the initial informed-consent process to the experience of having a complication represents new knowledge. Patients and families may use this knowledge as the basis to revoke consent for some or all of the remaining treatment course. This article seeks to understand cashing-out in terms of the patients' experiences. We hope to prompt recognition of this phenomenon across medical contexts and to provide impetus for further work to understand why patients may wish to cash-out.

AB - Surgical "buy-in" is an "informal contract between surgeon and patient in which the patient not only consents to the operative procedure but commits to the post-operative surgical care anticipated by the surgeon."1 Surgeons routinely assume that patients wish to undergo treatment for operative complications so that the overall treatment course is "successful," as in the treatment of a post-operative infection. This article examines occasions when patients buy-in to a treatment course that carries risk of complication, yet refuse treatment when complications arise. We coin this counter-phenomenon "cashing-out." Cashing-out may elicit negative feelings among careproviders. We question why patients or families may wish to cash-out. One reason may be the changing epistemological position of patients as they experience a complication. The shift from the hypothetical discussion of complications during the initial informed-consent process to the experience of having a complication represents new knowledge. Patients and families may use this knowledge as the basis to revoke consent for some or all of the remaining treatment course. This article seeks to understand cashing-out in terms of the patients' experiences. We hope to prompt recognition of this phenomenon across medical contexts and to provide impetus for further work to understand why patients may wish to cash-out.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046346294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046346294&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29565793

AN - SCOPUS:85046346294

VL - 29

SP - 15

EP - 19

JO - Journal of Clinical Ethics

JF - Journal of Clinical Ethics

SN - 1046-7890

IS - 1

ER -