The casuistic method of practical ethics

Evaluating the use of casuistry during moral case deliberation in the ICU: A multiple qualitative case study

Intensive care unit (ICU) professionals engage in ethical decision making under conditions of high stakes, great uncertainty, time-sensitivity and frequent irreversibility of action. Casuistry is a way by which actionable knowledge is obtained through comparing a patient case to previous cases from experience in clinical practice. However, within the field of study as well as in practice, evidence-based medicine is the dominant epistemic framework. This multiple case study evaluated the use of casuistic reasoning by intensive care unit (ICU) professionals during moral case deliberation. It took place in two Dutch hospitals between June 2020 and June 2022. Twentyfive moral case deliberations from ICU practice were recorded and analyzed using discourse analysis. Additionally, 47 interviews were held with ICU professionals who participated in these deliberations, analyzed using thematic analysis. We found that ICU professionals made considerable use of case comparisons when discussing continuation, withdrawal or limitation. Analogies played a role in justifying or complicating moral judgements, and also played a role in addressing moral distress. The language of case-based arguments is most often not overtly normative. Rather, the data shows that casuistic reasoning deals with the medical, ethical and contextual elements of decisions in an integrated manner. Facilitators of MCD have an essential role in (supporting ICU professionals in) scrutinizing casuistic arguments. The data shows that during MCD, actual reasoning often deviated from principle- and rule-based reasoning which ICU professionals preferred themselves. Evidence-based arguments often gained the character of analogical arguments, especially when a patient-at-hand was seen as highly unique from the average patients in the literature. Casuistic arguments disguised as evidence-based arguments may therefore provide ICU professionals with a false sense of certainty. Within education, we should strive to train clinicians and ethics facilitators so that they can recognize and evaluate casuistic arguments.

Practical training using immersive roleplay and an intensive course on clinical ethics consultation in Japan

Background

Clinical ethics consultation (CEC) is not sufficiently widespread in Japan. A possible reason is that a practical training system for CEC has not been established. Hence, we have developed “immersive role-play (IR)” as a practical training program that applies a new theatrical technique, immersive theater, to role-play learning. Its characteristics include high fidelity in the use of a studio and actors and dynamic realism in the progression of the scenario to immerse learners in role-play learning.

Methods

We offered an intensive course on CEC for healthcare professionals from 2016 to 2019, with IR as part of the course curriculum. A questionnaire survey was administered to the participants regarding the educational effectiveness of IR. The questionnaire was anonymous, and participants responded on a 4-point Likert scale regarding their satisfaction with IR and their perception of its learning effects. An open-ended section at the end of the questionnaire asked about the effectiveness and areas for improvement of IR.

Results

The questionnaire survey showed good results in all categories: usefulness, satisfaction, understanding, and interest. In the questions that compared the learning to traditional role-play learning, the participants gave significantly high ratings, specifically for “realism,“ “seriousness,“ “understanding the importance of communication skills,“ and “understanding the diversity of the narratives.“ In the free-text responses, the most frequent response was that they learned a lot about the practical procedures for participation.

Conclusion

IR is sufficiently effective as a practical educational program, but not for everyone. It is suitable for those who are or will soon work as consultants. Conversely, beginners and intermediates who have not fully mastered the CEC theory and skills will need a stage-specific educational program separate from the IR.

Parental Opinions on Medical Decision-Making in Adolescence: A Case-Based Survey

OBJECTIVE

Patient trust and consent are complex topics for health care workers in pediatrics, specifically when relating to adolescent's legal status. In the context of medical decisions, not much work has been performed to understand the opinion of parents on health care decision-making, especially on confidentiality concerning their adolescent children. The purpose of this research was to assess the parental opinions on these decisions and the influence of different perspectives.

METHODS

We used a case-based methodology to assess parental opinions on fictional medical decisions. A survey was provided to parents in 2 pediatric outpatient departments in Belgium and the Netherlands. The survey contained cases regarding medical care related to confidentiality and consent about which participants gave their opinion.

RESULTS

In total, 222 surveys were completed. Overall, most parents would allow an adolescent to make his/her own decision (58.6%-70.4%), except in the case of confidentiality on alcohol-related trauma (28.9%). The results show a significant difference in how parents responded when answering from the parental perspective or adolescents' perspective. They granted significantly more authority to the adolescent in the latter view.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that parents who were confronted with cases from an adolescent perspective were significantly more likely to give the patient authority. In addition, the medical issue and context influence how the parents responded. These data provide insight into the parental opinions and could lead to more evidence-based frameworks for shared medical decision-making of adolescents and their parents.

The Case of Billy Best: 25 Years Later

Billy Best was diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma in 1994 at age 16 and became well-known when he ran away from home to avoid receiving further chemotherapy. His story became national news when, with the support of his adopted parents, he returned home and opted to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) instead of standard chemotherapy and radiation for his cancer treatment. Now 25 years since Billy Best entered the public eye, his story is one that is frequently referenced in pediatrics, bioethics, and other related fields. Here, the authors examine the evolution of various features of this case, including treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, the interplay between medicine and the media, the role of CAM in pediatric care, navigating entrenched disagreements and how best to integrate adolescents into health care decision-making, and the role of narrative in medical practice. The authors explore the unique role of each of these facets of Billy Best's case, describing how each has or has not changed in the quarter century since that time amid the changing landscape of pediatric health care. Ultimately, although many advances have occurred since Billy Best's time, significant work remains. Additional effort will be required in the future to optimize communication, improve treatment toxicities from Hodgkin lymphoma without decreasing survival, integrate the voice and perspective of adolescents into their treatment decisions, and navigate the roles of CAM and the media in pediatric health care.