We can work it out: Should I hire my patient?

I have always thought: Other ethical models

An ethical approach to bartering that requires careful thought and respect for the patient’s needs appears consistent with a primary goal of treatment: “to increase the capacity of individuals to make more rational choices in their lives and to be relatively freer from disabling conflicts.”²⁰ Some authors criticize slippery-slope arguments and strict-rule ethical approaches as being too rigid, limiting, or risk-averse.^22,26,34 In Table 1,^{6,8,16,18,27,29-31,35-37} we list several factors that might weigh for or against a decision to enter into a barter arrangement as payment for care.

In a similar manner, Martinez^33,38 proposed a graded-risk framework that encourages examination of potential harms and benefits of a decision, potential coercive or exploitative elements, the clinician’s intentions and aspiration to professional ideals, and the context of the decision. Within this framework, some bartering arrangements might be encouraged and, perhaps, even obligatory because of the potential benefits to the patient; other arrangements (eg, trading psychotherapy for menial services) might be unjustifiable. Martinez³⁸ argues that this approach fosters mutual decision-making with patients, discourages physician paternalism, and “demands that we struggle with the particulars with each case.”

Gottlieb’s decision-making model³⁵ recognizes that trying to avoid all dual relationships is unrealistic and not all dual relationships are exploitative. Instead, a clinician must assess 3 dimensions of current and proposed relationships:

• the degree of power differential
• the duration of treatment
• the clarity of termination.

The decision-making process also requires involvement of the patient, who if “unable to recognize the dilemma or is unwilling to consider the issues before deciding, should be considered at risk, and the contemplated relationship rejected.”³⁵

So I will ask you once again: Dr. Z’s decision

In the case of Dr. Z and Mr. R, a barter arrangement might work in the sense of permitting and sustaining good care. Mr. R suggested the idea and might not be able to afford care without it. Nothing in Dr. Z’s description suggests that Mr. R has personality characteristics or other conditions that would compromise his ability to give informed consent or to understand the nuances of a barter arrangement. Dr. Z is not providing a treatment (eg, psychodynamic therapy) that a barter arrangement could contaminate. That the arrangement would be circumscribed limits the effect of a power differential, as would its brief duration and defined termination endpoint. Dr. Z’s letter to the authors also shows his willingness to seek consultation.

There’s a chance that we may fall apart: Reasons for caution

Martinez’s graded-risk approach recognizes reasons for caution:

• the risk of harm to the patient or doctor–patient relationship
• the uncertain benefit to the patient
• the blurring of Dr. Z’s self-interest and Mr. R’s needs
• some ambiguity about possible exploitation.

Dr. Z and Mr. R have not discussed the value of Mr. R’s work—which might create a rift between them—and despite Mr. R’s reputation, other carpenters are available. Future med-check appointments will give them little time to explore and discuss the meanings of the barter.

Any proposed barter arrangement creates some clinical perils that can be particularly salient in mental health treatment. Patients could view themselves as “special” or entitled to enhanced access to the doctor because of exchanged services, which could take a toll on the doctor.³⁹ The physician’s objectivity might diminish, and the business aspect of their relationship could make both parties less comfortable when discussing sensitive information relevant to treatment.^31,40 Also, the suggested barter is for services to be provided at Dr. Z’s office, where confidentiality may be breeched and transference issues could arise.

A medical malpractice claim states that a doctor has breached a duty of care to a patient such that harm (or “damages”) resulted.⁴¹ Should Dr. Z and Mr. R’s barter agreement turn sour and harm follow, Mr. R could sue for recovery of damages based of a claim of duress, undue influence, or other aspects of the doctor–patient power differential.^27,42,43 Given the published views we have described, a psychiatrist who barters also may be viewed as violating state regulations that measure the standard of care against generally accepted practice.

Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong

If you face a situation similar to Dr. Z’s and want to consider a barter arrangement, you can take several steps to mitigate potential risk to your patient and ensure competent care (Table 2^{5,6,15,16,32,35,39,40,44-47}). One of the most important steps is to seek ongoing consultation, both before and after a decision to barter. Ideally, the consulting colleague would know you and your circumstances and would have sufficient clinical grasp of the patient to make an informed assessment of risks and benefits.³⁵ This consultation, as well as your own rationale for acting on recommendations, should be thoroughly documented in the patient’s records.^26,44,45