- Linn Getz, occupational physician (linngetz@med.is)1,
- Johann A Sigurdsson, professor in family medicine2,
- Irene Hetlevik, associate professor in general practice3
- 1Office of Human Resources, Landspitali University Hospital, IS-101 Reykjavík, Iceland
- 2Department of Family Medicine, University of Iceland, Solvangur Health Centre, IS-220 Hafnarfjördur, Iceland
- 3Department of General Practice and Community Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, N-7489 Trondheim, Norway Irene Hetlevik
- Correspondence to: L Getz
- Accepted 5 June 2003
Medical resources are increasingly shifting from making patients better to preventing them from becoming ill. Genetic testing is likely to extend the list of conditions that can be screened for.Is it time to stop and consider whom we screen and how we approach it
Most medical experts and health authorities consider consultations in primary health care ideal for opportunistic health promotion and disease prevention. Doctors are thus expected to discuss preventive measures even when they are not among the reasons for contact. But are such opportunistic initiatives ethically justifiable in contemporary Western medicine? We argue that doctors should maintain a clear focus on each patient's reasons for seeking help rather than be distracted by an increasing list of standardised preventive measures with unpredictable relevance to the individual.

Aims of a good consultation
The cornerstone of medical practice is the consultation between a patient who seeks help and a doctor whomthe person trusts.1 Several theoretical models have been developed to analyse and improve the quality of the consultation. In 1979, Stott and Davis presented an influential model that elicited four potentials of the encounter between patient and doctor: management of presenting problems, modification of help seeking behaviour, management of continuing problems, and opportunistic health promotion.2 Since then, opportunistic preventive initiatives have become considered to be part of good medical practice.
From a moral point of view, preventive medicine– that is, initiatives to improve health among people who are currently free of symptoms–is fundamentally different from curative medicine, which is offered to patientswho seek medical help. The two disciplines imply different promises and have different obligations to the individuals whose lives they modify.3
Expanding agenda of risk and prevention
When Stott and Davis developed their model, the number of relevant opportunistic initiatives was limited and seemed both technically feasible and ethically justifiable. However, interest in risk factors in healthy …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27