ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2026
Navigating Patient-Initiated Non-Standard Care (PINSC) Requests: Applying an Ethically Coherent Framework for Shared Decision-Making.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In current medical decision-making, prioritizing patient autonomy and shared decision-making has reshaped the ethical landscape. Medical decisions are no longer solely driven by a strong physician paternalism, where doctors are assumed to know best, but are increasingly characterized by a sharing of information, collaboration on decisions, and incorporation of patient values and preferences. While this shift promotes shared decision-making and patient-centered care, it has also given rise to additional ethically-complex challenges, including what will be referred to here as Patient-Initiated Non-Standard Care (PINSC) requests. PINSC requests emerge when patients or their surrogate decision-maker(s) seek interventions which fall outside accepted medical guidelines or evidence-based standards of care. This paper recounts various PINSC requests received at several hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Fundamental distinctions between PINSC requests and other cases of informed refusal are then established to highlight their novel ethical complexity, and I argue that this complexity gives rise to significant ethical and professional concerns that warrant increased attention. I then explore the reasons why clinicians often feel obligated to accede to PINSC requests, review the limitations of existing response strategies to addressing them, and propose that a model of shared decision-making called the Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion, or Professionally-Driven ZPSD, can be used as an ethically-defensible framework for navigating these cases. The Professionally-Driven ZPSD supports clinicians to develop a range of treatment options ("the zone") for decision makers to choose from that are ethically permissible, as they would fall between those treatments which cause unjustifiable harm, and those (or that) which would be in the patient's best interests to have if this can be defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41989689What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.