CHAPTER 6: LIE AND DISCRETION OF PATIENT IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL MEDICINE?

Authors

  • Richard POUGNET M.D, Ph.D (Philosophie) Laboratoires d’Etudes et de Recherche en Sociologie (LABERS), EA3149, Faculté des Lettres et des Sciences Humaines, Victor Segalen, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest Centre de Ressources en Pathologies Professionnelles et Environnementales, CHRU Morvan, Brest Auteur correspondant 117 bis, rue Jules Lesven 29200 Brest Conflit d’intérêt : aucun.
  • Laurence POUGNET Laboratoire de biologie Médicale, Hôpital d’Instruction des Armées Clermont-Tonnerre, Brest Groupe d’Etudes des Interactions Hôtes-Pathogènes (GEIHP), EA3142, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, Brest.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54695/jib.32.02.6689

Keywords:

New technologies of information, physician patient relationship

Abstract

New technologies have profoundly changed the socialization as well as the care pathway. Digital medicine is taking a new turn with the emergence of connected drugs, making it possible to monitor the taking of treatment. In the United States, a connected drug used for the treatment of bipolar disorders has received marketing authorization, in particular. The purpose of this article is not to enter into the debates about this treatment specifically, but about the technology itself. Our problem is to ask ourselves whether the computerized traceability of medication intake does not influence the doctor-patient relationship. To do this, we use the doctor-patient relational asymmetries, and the main doctor-patient relationship models, to show that the patient’s space of freedom also involves a power to lie or to hide information. In our opinion, too high a traceability would not meet the real demand of the patient; request varying according to his psychological changes, but above all, according to his personal evolution with his/her illness.

Published

2021-07-07

How to Cite

POUGNET, R., & POUGNET, L. (2021). CHAPTER 6: LIE AND DISCRETION OF PATIENT IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL MEDICINE?. Journal International De bioéthique Et d’éthique Des Sciences, 32(02), 69. https://doi.org/10.54695/jib.32.02.6689

Issue

Section

Articles