Clinical nudging as informing

“Nudges” are features of the ways that choices are presented to agents that influence their disposition to choose one option over another, without taking options away and without giving them a reason to choose that option. In medicine, nudging has been proposed as a way for physicians to promote patients’ well-being by steering them toward choices that are actually in their best interest. However, nudges have also been criticized on the grounds that they disrespect or undermine choosers’ autonomy by bypassing their rational cognitive processes; in particular, it has been argued that clinical nudging undermines informed consent by interfering with patients’ ability to weigh reasons bearing on their decisions. Drawing on recent work by Andreas Schmidt and Neil Levy, this paper argues that nudges can be used to direct patients’ attention to factors to which they should be attentive. The paper therefore defends (some) clinical nudges on the basis that they promote informed decision-making by contributing to patients’ appreciation of relevant considerations.

Clint Hurshman is a philosopher of technology with a PhD from the University of Kansas and is currently a postdoctoral fellow at the National University of Singapore, Centre for Biomedical Ethics.