title: Valuing hope.
abstract: This article argues that hope is of value in clinical ethics and that it can be important for clinicians to be sensitive to both the risks of false hope and the importance of retaining hope. However, this sensitivity requires an understanding of the complexity of hope and how it bears on different aspects of a well-functioning doctor-patient relationship. We discuss hopefulness and distinguish it, from three different kinds of hope, or 'hopes for', and then relate these distinctions back to differing accounts of autonomy. This analysis matters because it shows how an overly narrow view of the ethical obligations of a clinician to their patient, and autonomy, might lead to scenarios where patients regret the choices they make.
authors.forename: John
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: McMillan
authors.forename: Simon
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Walker
authors.forename: Tony
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Hope
mesh_terms: D004644:Emotions; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D065026:Hope / Q000941:ethics*; D006801:Humans; D028681:Moral Obligations; D026706:Paternalism / Q000941:ethics; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations / Q000941:ethics*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012307:Risk Factors; D019452:Terminally Ill; D014342:Truth Disclosure