Decision Making
A variety of models for making decisions are available. Three of these models are paternalistic, informative, and shared decision making.
- Discuss the pros and cons of each of these models and the problems that are best suited for the various methods.
- Determine which method has the strongest possibility of resulting in permanent change.
Submission Instructions:
- Your initial post should be at least 600 words, formatted and cited in current APA style with support from at least 3 academic sources.
- You should respond (150 words each) to two of your peers by extending, refuting/correcting, or adding additional nuance to their posts.
Paternalistic Decision Making:
Pros:
- Efficiency: This model can be efficient, especially in urgent or critical situations where immediate action is required, as the decision-making process is streamlined.
- Expertise Utilization: It allows experts or authorities to make decisions based on their knowledge and experience, potentially leading to better outcomes in complex situations.
- Reduced Burden: Individuals who may not have the capacity or expertise to make certain decisions are relieved of the burden of decision-making.
Cons:
- Lack of Autonomy: One significant drawback is the erosion of individual autonomy. People may feel disempowered or marginalized when decisions are made on their behalf without their input.
- Risk of Misjudgment: There’s a risk that the paternalistic decision-maker may not fully understand the individual’s preferences or unique circumstances, leading to decisions that are not aligned with the individual’s best interests.
- Resentment and Distrust: Individuals may resent or distrust the decision-maker if they feel their autonomy has been violated, which can undermine the effectiveness of the decision in the long term.
Informative Decision Making:
Pros:
- Empowerment: This model empowers individuals by providing them with relevant information, allowing them to make informed decisions that align with their preferences and values.
- Ownership: Individuals are more likely to take ownership of decisions when they are actively involved in the decision-making process, leading to greater commitment and follow-through.
- Enhanced Understanding: It fosters a deeper understanding of the situation and its implications, enabling individuals to weigh the pros and cons more effectively.
Cons:
- Time-Consuming: Informative decision-making can be time-consuming, particularly when dealing with complex issues or when individuals require extensive information to make a decision.
- Potential for Information Overload: There’s a risk of overwhelming individuals with too much information, leading to decision paralysis or confusion.
- Limited Access to Information: Not all individuals have equal access to relevant information, which can create disparities in decision-making outcomes.
Shared Decision Making:
Pros:
- Collaboration: Shared decision-making promotes collaboration and partnership between individuals and healthcare professionals, leading to decisions that are more patient-centered and holistic.
- Enhanced Satisfaction: Individuals tend to be more satisfied with decisions when they actively participate in the decision-making process, even if the outcome is not ideal.
- Improved Adherence: When individuals are involved in decision-making, they are more likely to adhere to treatment plans or follow through with recommended actions.
Cons:
- Resource Intensive: Shared decision-making requires time, resources, and effort from both individuals and healthcare professionals, which may not always be feasible, particularly in busy or resource-constrained settings.
- Conflict: There’s potential for disagreement or conflict between individuals and healthcare professionals, especially if there are differing opinions or preferences.
- Unequal Power Dynamics: Power dynamics within the decision-making process may favor healthcare professionals, leading to unequal participation or influence.
Suitability and Possibility of Permanent Change:
The suitability of each decision-making model depends on the context and the preferences of the individuals involved. For instance, paternalistic decision-making may be more appropriate in emergency situations where immediate action is necessary, while shared decision-making may be preferable for long-term treatment plans involving chronic conditions.
In terms of the possibility of resulting in permanent change, shared decision-making arguably holds the strongest potential. This is because it empowers individuals to take an active role in decision-making, leading to greater ownership and commitment to the chosen course of action. When individuals are actively involved in decisions that affect their health and well-being, they are more likely to adopt and sustain behavior changes over the long term. Additionally, the collaborative nature of shared decision-making fosters trust and partnership between individuals and healthcare professionals, further enhancing the likelihood of permanent change.