Search

At the dawn of "metaclinical medicine" era, shared decision-making represents the overcoming of modern medicine guidelines and classical medicine experience. The patient's life plan, the doctor's health plan, the scientist's evidence-based plan, the administrator's plan and the beliefs of the society for healthcare options should be integrated into the shared decision-making process to avoid patient's unrealistic expectations, doctor's self-referential and defensive medicine, the science without compassion of the scientist, the administered medicine of the politician, the herd mentality of artificial intelligence. For a doctor who must evaluate according to science and conscience, it becomes difficult to make decisions about a patient who thinks that there can be "no decisions about me without me". It risks being a pure declamatory statement in the absence of clinical knowledge and the associated concept of probability. The idea of moving from informed consent to shared probability is convenient for both the doctor and the patient but not for litigation professionals. Even in metaclinical medicine, clinical decision support systems, if well governed, would facilitate the choice of the best treatment according to the definition of absolute risk reduction and the number of patients to be treated to avoid an event, leaving it up to the doctor-patient relationship the narrative and the choice of the most appropriate treatment, which also requires taking care of the emotional and compassionate aspects.