Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Are patients morally responsible for their errors?

S Buetow1, G Elwyn

  • 1Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. s.buetow@auckland.ac.nz

Journal of Medical Ethics
|May 2, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake.

Journal of internal medicine·2021
Same author

Genetic Testing Considerations in Breast Cancer Patients.

Journal of genetic counseling·2015
Same author

Shared decision-making in epilepsy management.

Epilepsy & behavior : E&B·2015
Same author

Systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to encourage patients to remind healthcare professionals about their hand hygiene.

The Journal of hospital infection·2015
Same author

Technology identity: the role of sociotechnical representations in the adoption of medical devices.

Social science & medicine (1982)·2013
Same author

"Of the edgelands": broadening the scope of qualitative methodology.

Medical humanities·2013
Same journal

Suicide is not a public health issue and perhaps very few things should be.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Normalising transparency: an argument for requiring generative AI use declarations in all manuscripts-with a call for commentaries.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Not all personal utilities are equal: a two-tier normative framework for genomic health technology assessment.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Correction: Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Emergent ethics of xenotransplantation: findings from a survey on public attitudes toward animal to human organ transplantation in the UK.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Is sport in the 'public interest'? Towards a legal and ethical framework for justifying sport-related harm.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
See all related articles

Patients may be morally responsible for medical errors they can avoid or influence. This research explores patient accountability in medical errors, moving beyond solely system-based explanations.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Philosophy of Medicine
  • Patient Safety

Background:

  • Current medical error literature focuses on system deficiencies, often overlooking patient contributions.
  • There's a need to explore the moral responsibility of patients for their role in medical errors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate whether patients bear moral responsibility for medical errors.
  • To define appropriate responses to medical errors by considering patient accountability.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of medical error literature from an incompatibilist, agent causation perspective.
  • Application of H.L.A. Hart's four senses of moral responsibility: role, capacity, causal, and liability responsibility.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Each of Hart's senses of responsibility contributes to assessing patient accountability for errors.
  • Patients appear to hold moral responsibility for errors that are avoidable, or to which they contribute or can influence.

Conclusions:

  • A comprehensive theoretical framework is needed to evaluate patient moral responsibility in medical errors.
  • Shifting focus solely to system deficiencies neglects the potential for patient agency and responsibility.