Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Article CommentaryCommentary

From paternalism to benevolent coaching

New model of care

Christine Loignon and Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier
Canadian Family Physician November 2012; 58 (11) 1194-1195;
Christine Loignon
Professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec.
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: christine.loignon@USherbrooke.ca
Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the modern North American context, the patient-centred approach has become the foremost ideology of medicine.1 The patient’s centrality and participation in decision making have emerged as strong themes,2 with the result that antipaternalism has become the predominant philosophical position regarding the physician-patient relationship.3

Given this development, our commentary poses the following questions: What if, in the intimacy of the consulting room, some patients request an authoritarian form of guidance—which we refer to here as benevolent coaching—from their physicians? Can an approach to care that allows for the potential exercise of authority fit with the core values of dedication that underpin the patient-centred care model?

Complex picture of paternalism

Two recent sources of information impel us to raise these questions. First, in a study we conducted, paternalism emerged as a recurrent theme in the analysis of 25 in-depth interviews with GPs providing care to patients with multimorbidity in the most deprived areas of Montreal, Que. In these interviews, many GPs confided that they had not abandoned what they defined as paternalism, arguing for its nuanced adoption. Of note, all 25 GPs selected for our study had been identified by their colleagues as having developed strategies for creating positive therapeutic alliances with patients living in poverty.4 These GPs’ admissions drew our attention to the selective use, in this context, of what they considered to be a paternalistic approach to care.

In addition to this empirical material, the second impetus for our commentary is the work of researchers such as Sandman and Munthe1 and Sutrop,5 who recently proposed different ways of seeing paternalism, suggesting a more complex picture than previously envisioned. Interestingly, Sandman and Munthe1 proposed that the 2 most common models of decision making—paternalism and patient choice—are not necessarily incompatible with a shared decision-making model. Similarly, Sutrop5 argued that there should be no conflict between autonomy and the version of paternalism that she refers to as beneficence, because the two could coexist.

These reflections and our empirical data have prompted us to contribute to the current debate in family medicine by proposing a new model of care to be embedded in the patient-centred approach. We argue that the adoption of a benevolent form of coaching by physicians would provide some patients with the tools they need to deal with chronic illnesses and difficult social situations—indeed, that benevolent coaching could, under certain circumstances, help to empower some patients.

Some GPs we interviewed used the term paternalism to refer to the compassionate and humane approach they adopted when they believed their patients requested and needed it. However, the approach described by the GPs contrasts in many respects with the harsher version of the term6 that has historically been associated with pejorative themes such as dominance and subordination. We have therefore adopted the expression benevolent coaching to emphasize physicians’ compassionate intentions in providing care and in guiding patients toward what they consider to be the most appropriate options. This expression more suitably reflects the comments of our interviewees as well as our own observations. It further avoids contributing to a dichotomous model in which paternalism and patients’ autonomy are opposed.

Therefore, we define benevolent coaching as a combination of accompaniment, guidance, and committed support and availability. It arises out of a flexible approach and an in-depth understanding of the patient’s multiple chronic conditions and social context.

To satisfy the definition of benevolent coaching, the physician’s approach must meet 3 criteria. First, it must be based on the patient’s individual needs and conditions. Second, to be ethically sensitive, benevolent coaching must be adopted in response to the patient’s request or needs—implicit or explicit—or with the patient’s approval, even if only retroactively available, as in cases of temporary incapacity. Also, a patient might request guidance at one point and prefer autonomy at another when facing new circumstances or health conditions.7 Third, benevolent coaching implies a need and willingness to adapt one’s practice.8 Benevolent coaching calls upon physicians’ flexibility and judgment—acquired through experience—rather than on a list of rules.

Indeed, with reference to vulnerable populations, interviewees emphasized the potential benefits of adopting benevolent coaching in 3 specific circumstances. These cases illustrate how physicians’ experience can shape their practices.

Benefits of benevolent coaching

First, some older patients feel more secure having family physicians determine their path of action because they see physicians as authority figures. Second, encouraging patient autonomy among immigrants and refugees unfamiliar with Western health care might impede the creation of a positive therapeutic alliance. Third, physicians explained that, with drug-addicted patients, an authoritative approach with strict limits is key to achieving sustained and effective care relationships. Physicians’ experiences with these patient groups led them to assume a more directive role.

From these first-hand data we can see that, when certain criteria are met, benevolent coaching might properly suit the needs and demands of specific patients and thereby represent a new model of patient-centred care. We question the appropriateness of uncritical adoption of either a shared decision-making model or a patient-centred approach—which assumes an active and informed patient—if it leads to patients’ needs not being seriously considered and addressed. Why not provide benevolent coaching if the patient requests it or if the physician believes the patient needs it?

In the context of urban poverty, we consider that adapting practice to meet patients’ expectations is a matter of social competence, which we define as the process of acquiring tools through experience to build positive alliances with patients despite social distance.4 The 3 circumstances mentioned above strongly suggest that what the GPs called paternalism—but which we identify as benevolent coaching—offers a concrete point of analysis to further explore the notion of social competence as a context-relative, individual-specific, and socially responsive approach.

Currently, the physician-patient relationship is defined by collaboration, negotiation, and dialogue, rather than a top-down approach. In this context, our commentary is intended to fuel the debate and to ask: Have we thrown the baby out with the bath water?

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • La traduction en français de cet article se trouve à www.cfp.ca dans la table des matières du numéro de novembre 2012 à la page e618.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • The opinions expressed in commentaries are those of the authors. Publication does not imply endorsement by the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sandman L,
    2. Munthe C
    . Shared decision making, paternalism and patient choice. Health Care Anal 2010;18(1):60-84. Epub 2009 Jan 30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Murphy JF
    . Paternalism or partnership: clinical practice guidelines and patient preferences. Ir Med J 2008;101(8):232.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Miller FG,
    2. Wertheimer A
    . Facing up to paternalism in research ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2007;37(3):24-34.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Loignon C,
    2. Haggerty JL,
    3. Fortin M,
    4. Bedos CP,
    5. Allen D,
    6. Barbeau D
    . Physicians’ social competence in the provision of care to persons living in poverty: research protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2010;10:79.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Sutrop M
    . How to avoid a dichotomy between autonomy and beneficence: from liberalism to communitarianism and beyond. J Intern Med 2011;269(4):375-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Buchanan DR
    . Autonomy, paternalism, and justice: ethical priorities in public health. Am J Public Health 2008;98(1):15-21. Epub 2007 Nov 29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Brown JB,
    2. Weston WW,
    3. Stewart M
    . The third component: finding common ground. In: Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW, McWhinney IR, McWilliam CL, Freeman TR, editors. Patient-centered medicine: transforming the clinical method. 2nd ed. Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Medical Press; 2003. p. 83-99.
  8. ↵
    1. Scherger JE
    . Future vision: is family medicine ready for patient-directed care? Fam Med 2009;41(4):285-8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 58 (11)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 58, Issue 11
1 Nov 2012
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to 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.
From paternalism to benevolent coaching
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
From paternalism to benevolent coaching
Christine Loignon, Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2012, 58 (11) 1194-1195;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
From paternalism to benevolent coaching
Christine Loignon, Alexandrine Boudreault-Fournier
Canadian Family Physician Nov 2012, 58 (11) 1194-1195;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Complex picture of paternalism
    • Benefits of benevolent coaching
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Du paternalisme à l’encadrement bienveillant
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Reflections on the value of Canadian multiculturalism in health care delivery
  • The environmental elephant in the office: medications
  • Six-sentence and 3-citation research proposals
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire