Ethonomics: the ethics of the unaffordable

Do we present abstracts on ethical, legal, cost-effectiveness and patient care issues at major gastroenterology congresses?

INTRODUCTION

In the era of the new millennium, a lot of preclinical and clinical research is published. However, ethico-legal, cost-effectiveness and patient care issues are not addressed equally.

AIM

To investigate whether abstracts presented at major international gastroenterology congresses refer to issues relevant to doctor-patient relationship, cost-effectiveness and care.

METHODS

We reviewed the abstracts on disk CD-ROMs of the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) and the Digestive Disease Week (DDW), for the years 1998-2006. We used the following keywords: ethical/ethically, legal, consent, cost-effective/effectiveness, care, quality and tolerable/tolerability.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 1,612/20,018 (8.05%) and 764/45,628 (1.67%) abstracts including the above keywords were presented at UEGW and DDW congresses (p = 0.013), respectively. Statistically significant more abstracts containing separately any of the key words (apart from 'legal') were presented at the UEGW than at the DDW congress. There was a significant trend of increased referring to these key words over the study period for UEGW (p < 0.041) but not for DDW congresses (p = 0.70).

CONCLUSION

The abstracts presented at the UEGW refer to ethico-legal, cost-effectiveness and patient care issues more frequently than those presented at the DDW. There is a trend of increased referring to these subjects at the UEGW but not at the DDW.

Viewpoint: why the clinical ethics we teach fails patients

The clinical ethics framework that is typically taught to medical students and residents is deeply flawed, and the result of using this framework exclusively to resolve ethical conflicts at the bedside is compromised patient care. The author calls this framework the principlist paradigm and maintains that it blinds clinicians from seeing the full set of moral obligations they have to the patient and limits the range of options they see as available to navigate through ethical conflicts. Although it is important for the moral obligations it does recognize (e.g., those based on the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice), the principlist paradigm should not be used as the only moral template for case analysis. The author illustrates the paradigm's limitations with a clinical case study, in which the treating clinicians failed to recognize three important moral obligations to the patient: the obligation to express regret, the obligation to apologize, and the obligation to make amends. The failure to recognize these widely accepted moral obligations can have tragic consequences. The principlist paradigm undertrains clinicians for the complex ethical dilemmas they face in practice, and medical ethics educators need to rethink the tools they offer student clinicians to guide their ethical analysis. The author advocates a reexamination of this standard approach to teaching clinical ethics.

Accounting for tastes: a German perspective on the inclusion of patient preferences in healthcare

Internationally, there has been a movement in medicine to better involve patients in decision making, whether it be at the individual or aggregate level. However, the German health sector has been slow to understand and accommodate the preferences of patients. This paper discusses the reasons why and attempts to highlight some of the consequences of not involving patients in healthcare decision making within the German context. We argue that a fundamental paradigm shift at all levels of the German health system, including better doctor/patient communication, is necessary for more choices to be available to patients and to better reflect patient preferences in centralised healthcare decision making. The newly created German health technology assessment agency (IQWiG; Institute for Quality and Economic Efficiency in the Health Care Sector) has indicated that they are interested in focusing on patient preferences, but there is a need for them to clarify what methods they deem suitable for doing so.

A Study of Added Costs of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Based on Surgery Preference Cards

Hospitals are pressured to cut expenses to generate a profit, but many current surgical procedures still fall below a “break-even” point. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a high-volume surgical procedure that can be profitable for hospitals if costs are reduced and complications minimized. Our limited liability corporation of independent surgical specialists examined the preference cards of ten surgeons who performed laparoscopic cholecystectomies in August 2000. We wished to determine whether these surgeons differed in their use of disposable equipment and devices for the same surgical procedure. All of the disposable equipment and devices studied were assigned a price by the hospital purchasing department that was representative of the hospital costs and not what was billed to the patient. The sum total of disposable instruments for a single operative case in which laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed ranged from $92 to $637 (mean $333) depending on the preference of the surgeon. Our study points out the differences in expenses between surgeons. Maintaining this type of expense tracking can apply to other procedures and is a good place to start a surgeon-led and hospital-based cost-saving initiative.

Bed rationing and allocation in the intensive care unit

That the resources available for intensive care cannot be infinite is self-evident. Parallel increases in medical capability, cost, and community expectations have forced intensivists to confront the reality of resource limitation. Traditional bioethical structures cope poorly with this focus beyond the traditional patient-doctor relationship. Allocation of funds for intensive care may be case-based, historically based, per diem, or capitation-based but is always heavily influenced by political and economic considerations. Attempts have been made to relate costs to severity or intervention scores, but all these techniques are limited by the high fixed costs of intensive care. Methods available to help the physician faced with patient-selection dilemmas include cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. These techniques involve assessment of the quality of life with the help of several well-validated quantitative approaches. Choosing between competing patients for intensive care beds is often more a theoretical issue than a practical one, because alternative arrangements can almost always be made. Physicians have an ethical and social responsibility to further develop the tools to inform community debate on these issues.

Healthcare rationing: constraints and equity

It is no longer possible or ethically acceptable to deny that rationing occurs in medical practice. We ration already by using "contraindications to treatment". There are no rationing criteria that are universally ethically acceptable. We need ways to establish community preferences if we are to develop responsible methods of rationing healthcare services.

Ethical thinking and stakeholders

Modern medical practice increasingly requires us to think beyond the confines of the doctor-patient relationship to other stakeholders. Problems and issues that can be identified as being of interest to a number of people are defined as "focal entities". Stakeholders are those with an interest in the outcome of the problem or issue. The salience of stakeholders is defined by their power, legitimacy and urgency. The process of thinking about stakeholders can help to clarify our ethical thinking about matters of importance to people beyond the doctor-patient relationship.

Conflict of interests, vested interests and health research

This paper examines conflict of interest as it may arise in the activities of research advisory committees and ethical review committees. It distinguishes between vested interests and true conflict of interest. It also examines the ways in which stakeholdings differ from vested interests and conflicting interests differ from conflicts of interest. It explores the overlapping terrain of corruption and conflict of interest. The paper further examines the ways in which scientists, communities and the subjects of medical research all have legitimate stakeholdings in medical research. Each group thus has differently vested interests in the outcomes of the research. The vested interests of medical scientists are particularly complex because scientists have moral commitments to the welfare of patients that may compete with professional and personal interests in the outcome of research performed on those patients as research subjects. The more these interests diverge, the more opportunity will arise for conflict of interest. These observations have implications for the constitution of research advisory and ethical review committees, and the ways in which their discussions are conducted. Some practical help with protocols of discussion can be gained from philosophical and management writings.