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.
Paternalistic Decision Making
Pros:
- Expertise-Driven: Allows experts to make decisions based on their knowledge and experience, which can be especially beneficial in complex situations where the decision-maker has significantly more expertise than the person affected by the decision.
- Efficiency: Decisions can be made quickly without the need for lengthy discussions or consultations.
- Reduction of Burden: Reduces the cognitive and emotional burden on the person affected, as they do not need to weigh options or consider consequences.
Cons:
- Lack of Autonomy: The person affected by the decision may feel disempowered or disregarded, as their preferences and values are not considered.
- Potential for Mistrust: Can lead to mistrust or resentment if the person affected feels their perspective is not valued.
- Risk of Misalignment: Decisions may not align with the affected person’s values or preferences, potentially leading to dissatisfaction or non-compliance.
Best-Suited Problems:
- Emergency situations where quick decisions are critical.
- Complex medical scenarios where the patient lacks the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision.
Informative Decision Making
Pros:
- Empowerment: Provides the person affected with all relevant information, enabling them to make their own informed decisions.
- Autonomy: Respects and supports the individual’s autonomy and personal values.
- Education: Enhances the knowledge of the person affected, potentially leading to better decision-making in the future.
Cons:
- Information Overload: The person affected may feel overwhelmed by the amount of information provided, leading to decision paralysis.
- Misinterpretation: Without proper guidance, the person may misinterpret information or make decisions based on incomplete understanding.
- Time-Consuming: Requires significant time and effort to ensure all information is communicated clearly and effectively.
Best-Suited Problems:
- Situations where the person affected is capable of understanding and processing detailed information.
- Decisions involving personal preferences, such as lifestyle changes or elective medical procedures.
Shared Decision Making
Pros:
- Collaboration: Involves both the expert and the person affected in the decision-making process, ensuring that both perspectives are considered.
- Satisfaction: Tends to result in higher satisfaction, as the person affected feels heard and respected.
- Better Outcomes: Often leads to decisions that are more likely to be adhered to, as they align with the person’s values and preferences.
Cons:
- Time-Consuming: Requires more time and effort from both parties to discuss and reach a consensus.
- Potential for Conflict: Differences in opinions or values between the expert and the person affected can lead to conflicts or prolonged decision-making processes.
- Complexity: Can be challenging to navigate in situations where there is a significant power or knowledge imbalance.
Best-Suited Problems:
- Chronic illness management, where ongoing patient engagement and adherence to treatment plans are crucial.
- Situations where personal values and preferences play a significant role, such as end-of-life care decisions.
Strongest Potential for Resulting in Permanent Change:
Shared decision making has the strongest potential for resulting in permanent change. This approach fosters collaboration, ensures that the decisions made align with the person’s values and preferences, and increases the likelihood of adherence and satisfaction. By involving the person affected in the decision-making process, they are more likely to feel a sense of ownership and commitment to the decisions made, leading to more sustainable and lasting changes.