Acknowledging and addressing the many ethical aspects of disease

Impact of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes on maternal physical activity after pregnancy

AIM

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM) identifies women who are at future risk of developing type 2 diabetes. However, it is unclear if diagnosing GDM thus motivates women to increase physical activity after pregnancy or if this medicalization has the opposite effect of decreasing activity, possibly reflecting assumption of a sick role. We thus sought to evaluate the impact of diagnosing GDM on changes in maternal physical activity after pregnancy.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, physical activity patterns were assessed by the Baecke questionnaire for the year before pregnancy and the first year postpartum in 405 white women comprising the following three gestational glucose tolerance groups: (a) those who did not have GDM (non-GDM; n = 247), (b) women with undiagnosed GDM (n = 46) and (c) those diagnosed with GDM (n = 112).

RESULTS

In the year before pregnancy, mean adjusted total physical activity progressively decreased from non-GDM to undiagnosed GDM to diagnosed GDM (p = .067). Conversely, at 1 year postpartum, total physical activity was highest in those who had been diagnosed with GDM (p = .02). Compared with non-GDM, diagnosed GDM predicted an increase in total physical activity from pre-pregnancy to 1 year postpartum (t = 2.3, p = .02) whereas undiagnosed GDM predicted a concurrent decrease in leisure-time activity (t = -2.74, p = .006). Accordingly, the mean adjusted increase in body mass index from pre-pregnancy to 1 year postpartum was lowest in those with diagnosed GDM (0.26 ± 0.25 kg/m2 ), highest in undiagnosed GDM (1.23 ± 0.38 kg/m2 ) and intermediate in non-GDM (0.89 ± 0.22 kg/m2 ) (overall p = .04).

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis of GDM leads to increased physical activity after pregnancy that may partially attenuate postpartum weight retention.

Undermining autonomy and consent: the transformative experience of disease

Disease radically changes the life of many people and satisfies formal criteria for being a transformative experience. According to the influential philosophy of Paul, transformative experiences undermine traditional criteria for rational decision-making. Thus, the transformative experience of disease can challenge basic principles and rules in medical ethics, such as patient autonomy and informed consent. This article applies Paul's theory of transformative experience and its expansion by Carel and Kidd to investigate the implications for medical ethics. It leads to the very uncomfortable conclusion that disease involves transformative experiences in ways that can reduce people's rational decision-making ability and undermine the basic principle of respect for autonomy and the moral rule of informed consent. While such cases are limited, they are crucial for medical ethics and health policy and deserve more attention and further scrutiny.

Does disease incite a stronger moral appeal than health?

Is disease demotion more important than health promotion? The question is crucial for the ethos of medicine and for priority setting in healthcare. When things get tough, where should our attention and resources go: to health or disease? This study investigates two general perspectives on health and disease to address whether there is a stronger moral appeal from people's disease than from their health. While naturalist conceptions of health and disease are mute on moral appeal, normativist conceptions give diverse answers. Classical utilitarianism provides a symmetrical view of health and disease, according to which we have an equally strong moral appeal to further health as we have to reduce disease. Other normativist positions argue that there is an asymmetry between health and disease providing substantial support for a stronger moral appeal from disease than from health. This has a wide range of radical implications, especially within priority setting. In particular, treatment, palliation, and prevention of disease should have priority to the promotion and enhancement of health.

Too Much, Too Mild, Too Early: Diagnosing the Excessive Expansion of Diagnoses

Tremendous scientific and technological advances have vastly improved diagnostics. At the same time, false alarms, overdiagnosis, medicalization, and overdetection have emerged as pervasive challenges undermining the quality of healthcare and sustainable clinical practice. Despite much attention, there is no clarity on the classification and handling of excessive diagnoses. This article identifies three basic types of excessive diagnosing: too much, too mild, and too early. Correspondingly, it suggests three ways to reduce excess and advance high value care: we must stop diagnosing new phenomena, mild conditions, and early signs that do not give pain, dysfunction, and suffering.

Consequences of a Diagnostic Label: A Systematic Scoping Review and Thematic Framework

Objectives: To develop a thematic framework for the range of consequences arising from a diagnostic label from an individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, and community perspective.

Design: Systematic scoping review of qualitative studies.

Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL for primary studies and syntheses of primary studies that explore the consequences of labelling non-cancer diagnoses. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and forward citation searches undertaken.

Study Selection: We included peer reviewed publications describing the perceived consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer diagnostic label from four perspectives: that of the individual, their family/caregiver, healthcare professional and/or community members. We excluded studies using hypothetical scenarios.

Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction used a three-staged process: one third was used to develop a preliminary framework, the next third for framework validation, and the final third coded if thematic saturation was not achieved. Author themes and supporting quotes were extracted, and analysed from the perspective of individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, or community member.

Results: After deduplication, searches identified 7,379 unique articles. Following screening, 146 articles, consisting of 128 primary studies and 18 reviews, were included. The developed framework consisted of five overarching themes relevant to the four perspectives: psychosocial impact (e.g., positive/negative psychological impact, social- and self-identity, stigma), support (e.g., increased, decreased, relationship changes, professional interactions), future planning (e.g., action and uncertainty), behaviour (e.g., beneficial or detrimental modifications), and treatment expectations (e.g., positive/negative experiences). Perspectives of individuals were most frequently reported.

Conclusions: This review developed and validated a framework of five domains of consequences following diagnostic labelling. Further research is required to test the external validity and acceptability of the framework for individuals and their family/caregiver, healthcare professionals, and community.