Old problems in need of new (narrative) approaches? A young physician-bioethicist's search for ethical guidance in the practice of physician-assisted dying in the Netherlands

Methodological and ethical challenges in designing and conducting research at the end of life: A systematic review of qualitative and textual evidence

AIM

This systematic review aims to identify methodological and ethical challenges in designing and conducting research at the end of life from the perspective of researchers and provide a set of recommendations.

BACKGROUND

Conducting research with patients and family carers facing end-of-life issues is ethically and methodologically complex.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until the end of 2021 in February 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews was followed, and the JBI Approach to qualitative synthesis was used for analysis.

RESULTS

Seventeen of 1983 studies met inclusion criteria. Data were distilled to six main themes. These included (1) the need for flexibility at all stages of the research process; (2) careful attention to timing; (3) sensitivity in approach; (4) the importance of stakeholder collaboration; (5) the need for unique researcher skills; and (6) the need to deal with the issue of missing data.

CONCLUSION

The findings illuminate several considerations that can inform training programmes, ethical review processes and research designs when embarking on research in this field.

A multidisciplinary perspective on physician-assisted dying in primary care in The Netherlands: A narrative interview study

Most research on physician-assisted dying (PAD) in the Netherlands focuses on general practitioners (GPs). Less is known about the perspectives of other professionals. We performed narrative interviews with 10 professionals other than GPs to explore their perspectives on PAD in primary care. The results provide insight into PAD as an enacted practice involving many different actors, considerations, and expectations and into the intertwinement between PAD and palliative sedation. The study shows how a multidisciplinary perspective to PAD provides new avenues for practice, research, and ethics. It poses the question whether PAD can and should be considered merely a physicians' concern.

Developing new ways to listen: the value of narrative approaches in empirical (bio)ethics

The use of qualitative research in empirical bioethics is becoming increasingly popular, but its implementation comes with several challenges, such as difficulties in aligning moral epistemology and methods. In this paper, we describe some problems that empirical bioethics researchers may face; these problems are related to a tension between the different poles on the spectrum of scientific paradigms, namely a positivist and interpretive stance. We explore the ideas of narrative construction, ‘genres’ in medicine and dominant discourses in relation to empirical research. We also reflect on the loss of depth and context that may occur with thematic or content analyses of interviews, and discuss the need for transparency about methodologies in empirical bioethics. Drawing on insights from narrative approaches in the social sciences and the clinical-educational discipline of Narrative Medicine, we further clarify these problems and suggest a narrative approach to qualitative interviewing in empirical bioethics that enables researchers to ‘listen (and read) in new ways’. We then show how this approach was applied in the first author’s research project about euthanasia decision-making. In addition, we stress the important ethical task of scrutinizing methodologies and meta-ethical standpoints, as they inevitably impact empirical outcomes and corresponding ethical judgments. Finally, we raise the question whether a ‘diagnostic’, rather than a ‘problem-solving’, mindset could and should be foregrounded in empirical ethics, albeit without losing a commitment to ethics’ normative task, and suggest further avenues for theorizing about listening and epistemic (in)justice in relation to empirical (bio)ethics.