Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Author's response

Michael Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (584): 223-224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X561320
Michael Fitzpatrick
6 Ridge Road, London, N8 9LG. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: fitz@easynet.co.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

The world of general practice looks very different from the perspective of my surgery in Hackney than it does from the lofty heights of Imperial College. As it happens, I do not spend ‘significant portions’ of my day dealing with the consequences of smoking, alcohol, and poor diet. Most of my patients are children, older people, and others for whom these are non-existent or marginal issues. We do face challenging problems in rheumatology, endocrinology, neurology, psychiatry, and cancers (notably of the breast and prostate), and many more that are little influenced by behavioural factors. I am greatly encouraged that over the two decades I have been in practice, thanks in part to better medical diagnosis and treatment, and despite what the fellows and professors of Imperial would regard as disgustingly unhealthy lifestyles, our patients are living longer and healthier lives.

Of course, I have some patients whose health has been adversely affected by smoking and alcohol, and others who suffer from car accidents, violence, and sports injuries. My job as a doctor is to help them with their medical problems, however they have arisen, not to tell them how to live their lives. I am not ‘in the business of influencing behaviour’: that is a legitimate activity for parents and teachers in relation to children, or circus trainers in relation to performing animals, and perhaps for clergyman, and probation officers. In my experience, patients are well aware that smoking and excessive drinking are not good for their health. Taking advantage of a medical consultation in an attempt to change these habits is impertinent, obtrusive, and implicitly authoritarian. (I do not, by the way, consider having a vaccination or a screening test as ‘behaviour’, a concept that implies a customary or habitual activity.)

Doctors' moralistic interventions are also likely to be counterproductive as they are corrosive of moral autonomy.1 They also give the impression that doctors have some expertise in the sphere of righteous living – which they have not – and that novel psychological techniques can enable them to achieve the desired outcomes – that, notwithstanding the extravagant claims of behavioural economics, remains to be seen. It is disturbing that the elitist ideology of nudge, that reflects such a paternalistic and disrespectful approach towards patients, is enjoying a growing influence over health policy.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, January 2011

REFERENCE

  1. ↵
    1. Furedi F
    , Defending moral autonomy against an army of nudgers. Spiked-Online, 20 January 2011. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10102/ (accessed 9 Feb 2011).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 61 (584)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 61, Issue 584
March 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Author's response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Author's response
Michael Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (584): 223-224. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X561320

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Author's response
Michael Fitzpatrick
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (584): 223-224. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X561320
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCE
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • GPs’ understanding of the wider workforce in primary care
  • 2020 vision? A retrospective study of time-bound curative claims in British and Irish newspapers
  • Verschlimmbesserung
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242