1
|
Faissner M, Brünig L, Gaillard AS, Jieman AT, Gather J, Hempeler C. Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2024; 19:6. [PMID: 38693533 PMCID: PMC11064353 DOI: 10.1186/s13010-024-00156-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Accepted: 03/03/2024] [Indexed: 05/03/2024] Open
Abstract
Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirjam Faissner
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
- Institute of the History of Medicine and Ethics in Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Thielallee 71, 14195, Berlin, Germany.
| | - Lisa Brünig
- Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Anne-Sophie Gaillard
- Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Anna-Theresa Jieman
- Department of Biological and Experimental Psychology, School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Jakov Gather
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Preventive Medicine, LWL University Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
- Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| | - Christin Hempeler
- Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kolmes S, Ha C, Potter J. Responding to Cultural Limitations on Patient Autonomy: A Clinical Ethics Case Study. HEC Forum 2024; 36:99-109. [PMID: 35943673 DOI: 10.1007/s10730-022-09490-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/07/2022] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
This paper is a clinical ethics case study which sheds light on several important dilemmas which arise in providing care to patients from cultures with non-individualistic conceptions of autonomy. Medical professionals face a difficult challenge in determining how to respond when families of patients ask that patients not be informed of bad medical news. These requests are often made for cultural reasons, by families seeking to protect patients. In these cases, the right that patients have to their own medical information in order to make autonomous decisions is in tension with the possibility that patients could hold values that require limiting their autonomy with regard to medical information disclosure, often based on the idea that family should take on difficult decision-making as an act of care. We describe one such case, of an 83-year old Russian woman whose husband requested she not be informed of a new cancer diagnosis. The appropriate response to this request was to ask the patient about her values separately, without disclosing any medical information until her values were clear. This patient indicated she wanted the care team to uphold her husband's request. This response makes the importance of determining a patient's values before moving forward with disclosure clear: she would not have wanted to be informed of her cancer. We describe our conversation strategy, which allowed value exploration without disclosure and highlighted that the obligation to respect a patient's autonomy sometimes includes an obligation to allow a patient to choose to limit their own autonomy. This case also highlights that this kind of conversation prioritizes the patient's values rather than the family's or care team's, centering patients in the way that is ethically appropriate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Kolmes
- Providence Center for Health Care Ethics, Portland, OR, USA.
| | | | - Jordan Potter
- Wellstar Health System (Clinical Ethics), Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Metselaar S. Translational bioethics as a two-way street. Developing clinical ethics support instruments with and for healthcare practitioners. Bioethics 2024; 38:233-240. [PMID: 37776570 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13225] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2022] [Revised: 07/11/2023] [Accepted: 09/01/2023] [Indexed: 10/02/2023]
Abstract
This article discusses an approach to translational bioethics (TB) that is concerned with the adaptation-or 'translation'-of concepts, theories and methods from bioethics to practical contexts, in order to support 'non-bioethicists', such as researchers and healthcare practitioners, in dealing with their ethical issues themselves. Specifically, it goes into the participatory development of clinical ethics support (CES) instruments that respond to the needs and wishes of healthcare practitioners and that are tailored to the specific care contexts in which they are to be used. The theoretical underpinnings of this participatory approach to TB are found in hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. As an example, the development of CURA, a low-threshold CES instrument for healthcare professionals in palliative care, is discussed. From this example, it becomes clear that TB is a two-way street. Practice may be improved by means of CES that is effectively tailored to specific end users and care contexts. The other way around, ethical theory may be enriched by means of the insights gained from engaging with practice in developing CES in a process of co-creation. TB is also a two-way street in the sense that it requires collaboration and commitment of both bioethicists and practitioners, who engage in a process of mutual learning. However, substantial challenges remain. For instance, is there a limit to the extent to which a method of moral reasoning can be adapted in order to meet the constraints of a given healthcare setting? Who is to decide, the bioethicist or the practitioners?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne Metselaar
- Ethics, Law, & Humanities, Amsterdam UMC, Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bibler TM, Nelson RH, Moore B, Malek J, Majumder MA. Building Effective Mentoring Relationships During Clinical Ethics Fellowships: Pedagogy, Programs, and People. HEC Forum 2024; 36:1-29. [PMID: 35218454 DOI: 10.1007/s10730-022-09473-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/08/2022] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
How should clinical ethicists be trained? Scholars have stated that clinical ethics fellowships create well-trained, competent ethicists. While this appears intuitive, few features of fellowship programs have been publicly discussed, let alone debated. In this paper, we examine how fellowships can foster effective mentoring relationships. These relationships provide the foundation for the fellow's transition from novice to competent professional. In this essay, we begin by discussing our pedagogical commitments. Next, we describe the structures our program has created to assist our fellows in becoming competent ethicists. We then outline the kinds of knowledge, skills, and professional attributes mentors should possess. Following this, we focus on the knowledge, skills, and professional attributes that fellows develop as they co-create effective mentoring relationships. We will not prescribe a single approach to fellowship training; instead, our perspective will, we hope, become a catalyst for further conversation on training and mentoring clinical ethics fellows.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trevor M Bibler
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| | - Ryan H Nelson
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Bryanna Moore
- Institute for Bioethics and Health Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - Janet Malek
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Mary A Majumder
- Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lukich N, Honan L. Here for the people: The argument for making clinical ethics more patient-centred. Healthc Manage Forum 2024; 37:113-116. [PMID: 38319809 PMCID: PMC10895898 DOI: 10.1177/08404704241232041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
Healthcare organizations aim to provide excellent, patient-centred care. Many departments within a hospital excel in achieving this goal, but clinical ethics service providers would benefit from becoming more patient-centred. This article considers how ethics services can add a patient-facing component to their strategic direction and work portfolio. Through a case example, suggestions to guide ethics service providers in expanding their duties and responsibilities are provided, including consultation with families and education sessions. This reframing would include clarifying the role of ethics within a healthcare organization, making services more accessible to patients, families and the community, as well as engaging with other disciplines to provide well-rounded patient care. While the work currently being done by clinical ethics services is important and ought to be continued, ethics service providers should strive to achieve the goal of improving patient experiences and directly contribute to the excellent care being provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Lauren Honan
- Trillium Health Partners, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Blackstone EC, Daly BJ. The Need for Specialized Oncology Training for Clinical Ethicists. HEC Forum 2024; 36:45-59. [PMID: 35426566 DOI: 10.1007/s10730-022-09477-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2021] [Revised: 01/22/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2022] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
Numerous ethical issues are raised in cancer treatment and research. Informed consent is challenging due to complex treatment modalities and prognostic uncertainty. Busy oncology clinics limit the ability of oncologists to spend time reinforcing patient understanding and facilitating end-of-life planning. Despite these issues and the ethics consultations they generate, clinical ethicists receive little if any focused education about cancer and its treatment. As the field of clinical ethics develops standards for training, we argue that a basic knowledge of cancer should be included and offer an example of what cancer ethics training components might look like. We further suggest some specific steps to increase collaboration between clinical ethicists and oncology providers in the outpatient setting to facilitate informed consent and proactively identify ethical issues.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric C Blackstone
- Department of Bioethics, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, 44106, Cleveland, OH, USA.
| | - Barbara J Daly
- Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, 44106, Cleveland, OH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Olszewski AE, Zhou C, Ugale J, Ramos J, Patneaude A, Opel DJ. Frequency of Perceived Conflict between Families and Clinicians at Time of Clinical Ethics Consultation in Hospitalized Children. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2024; 15:60-65. [PMID: 37754199 DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2262958] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Little is known about the frequency of conflict between clinicians and families at the time of pediatric clinical ethics consultation (CEC) and what factors are associated with the presence of conflict. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single, tertiary urban US pediatric hospital that included all hospitalized patients between January 2008 and December 2019 who received CEC. Utilizing the hospital's CEC database that requires documentation of the presence of conflict by the consultant at the time of CEC, we determined the frequency and types of perceived conflict between families and clinicians. We also assessed the bivariable association between conflict and patient age, patient- or family-reported race/ethnicity, language for care, insurance status, clinical setting, and consultant involvement. RESULTS Perceived conflict between clinicians and families was present in 44% (91/209) of CEC. We observed a higher occurrence of clinician-family conflict within certain consult topics than others, in particular, informed consent/parental permission (69%), cultural considerations (67%), benefit/harm assessment (58%), and limitation of life-sustaining treatment (58%). We found no other significant associations between the presence of perceived conflict and patient sociodemographic factors or CEC factors. CONCLUSIONS Conflict between healthcare teams and families appears common in CEC, particularly with certain consult topics. Further study is needed to better understand conflict types, causes of conflicts, management and mediation strategies, and outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aleksandra E Olszewski
- Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Lurie Children's Hospital and Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Chuan Zhou
- Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jiana Ugale
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Jessica Ramos
- Center for Diversity and Health Equity, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Arika Patneaude
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
- School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Douglas J Opel
- Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Division of Bioethics and Palliative Care, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Crosby SS, Glantz LH. "Rectal Feeding"-Unethical Medical Officer Participation at CIA Secret Interrogation Facilities. JAMA 2024; 331:103-104. [PMID: 38127323 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.25866] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
This Viewpoint discusses recently released information regarding the practice of “rectal feeding” among detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret prisons.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sondra S Crosby
- Center for Health Law, Ethics, and Human Rights, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Medicine, Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Leonard H Glantz
- Center for Health Law, Ethics, and Human Rights, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kröger C, Molewijk B, Muntinga M, Metselaar S. The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations. BMC Med Ethics 2024; 25:4. [PMID: 38172942 PMCID: PMC10765795 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-023-00992-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice. METHODS We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation. RESULTS The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur. CONCLUSIONS The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Kröger
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
- Netherlands Defense Academy, Breda, The Netherlands.
| | - Bert Molewijk
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Maaike Muntinga
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Suzanne Metselaar
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Eisenberg L. Vulnerable Patients, Adult Protective Services Investigations, and Reticent Surrogates: What is the Role of Clinical Ethics? Am J Bioeth 2024; 24:140-141. [PMID: 38236851 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2024.2279434] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
|
11
|
Sebesta R. Protection through Partnering: Applying Social Work Theory to Clinical Ethics in a Case of Suspected Abuse. Am J Bioeth 2024; 24:146-148. [PMID: 38236852 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2024.2279440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Sebesta
- Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for Ethics in Health Care
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Bibler TM. Responding Well to Spiritual Worldviews: A Taxonomy for Clinical Ethicists. HEC Forum 2023; 35:309-323. [PMID: 34994915 DOI: 10.1007/s10730-021-09468-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
Every clinical ethics consultant, no matter their own spirituality, will meet patients, families, and healthcare professionals whose spiritualities anchor their moral worldviews. How might ethicists respond to those who rely on spirituality when making medical decisions? And further, should ethicists incorporate their own spiritual commitments into their clinical analyses and recommendations? These questions prompt reflection on foundational issues in the philosophy of medicine, political and moral theory, and methods of proper clinical ethics consultation. Rather than attempting to offer definitive answers to these questions, this essay prompts readers to consider their own answers to these questions. Specifically, it offers a taxonomic analysis of six (6) distinct responses: assessment, delegation, examination, translation, incorporation, and assertion. Furthermore, this essay describes the role of the ethicist's own spiritual commitments during the responses. Each section also names several strengths and weaknesses that ethicists ought to consider when evaluating the purpose and scope of each response. This paper prompts readers to consider circumstances under which they might promote, critique, or incorporate spiritual worldviews-their own and those of their patients-when offering clinical analyses and recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trevor M Bibler
- Center for Medical Ethics & Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Perin M, De Panfilis L. Clinical Ethics Committee in an Oncological Research Hospital: two-years Report. Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:1217-1231. [PMID: 37326119 PMCID: PMC10710006 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231174529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION AND AIM Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020, a CEC was established in an Oncology Research Hospital in the North of Italy. This paper describes the development process and the activities performed 20 months from the CEC's implementation, to increase knowledge about CEC's implementation strategy. RESEARCH DESIGN We collected quantitative data related to number and characteristics of CEC activities carried out from October 2020 to June 2022 using the CEC internal database. Data were reported descriptively and compared with data from the literature to provide a complete overview of the CEC's development and implementation process. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT The study has been conducted at the local health authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia. It is a report of the activities provided by the CEC, where no HPs or patients were involved. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The report is part of a larger study named EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC), which has been approved by the Local Ethics Committee (AUSLRE Protocollo n° 2022/0026554 of 24/02/2022). EvaCEC is also the first author's PhD project. FINDINGS In total, the CEC performed 7 ethics consultations (EC), published three policies related to particular ethical questions of clinical and organizational practice, provided one educational online course on ethics consultation targeting employed HPs, and promoted a specific dissemination process among the different departments of the LHA. According to our results, the CEC widely fulfilled the standard threefold set of clinical ethics support services tasks (namely, ethics consultation, ethics education, and policy development), but further investigations are needed to evaluate the CEC's impact on clinical practice. CONCLUSION Our findings may increase knowledge regarding the composition, role, and tasks of a CEC in an Italian setting, informing future strategies and efforts to regulate these institutions officially.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Perin
- Legal Medicine and Bioethics, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Ludovica De Panfilis
- Legal Medicine and Bioethics, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kröger C, Molewijk AC, Metselaar S. Developing Organizational Diversity Statements Through Dialogical Clinical Ethics Support: The Role of the Clinical Ethicist. J Bioeth Inq 2023; 20:379-395. [PMID: 37233964 PMCID: PMC10624755 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-023-10258-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2021] [Accepted: 11/20/2022] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
In pluralist societies, stakeholders in healthcare may have different experiences of and moral perspectives on health, well-being, and good care. Increasing cultural, religious, sexual, and gender diversity among both patients and healthcare professionals requires healthcare organizations to address these differences. Addressing diversity, however, comes with inherent moral challenges; for example, regarding how to deal with healthcare disparities between minoritized and majoritized patients or how to accommodate different healthcare needs and values. Diversity statements are an important strategy for healthcare organizations to define their normative ideas with respect to diversity and to establish a point of departure for concrete diversity approaches. We argue that healthcare organizations ought to develop diversity statements in a participatory and inclusive way in order to promote social justice. Furthermore, we maintain that clinical ethicists can support healthcare organizations in developing diversity statements in a more participatory way by fostering reflective dialogues through clinical ethics support. We will use a case example from our own practice to explore what such a developmental process may look like. We will critically reflect on the procedural strengths and challenges as well as on the role of the clinical ethicist in this example.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Kröger
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
- Faculty of Military Sciences, Netherlands Defence Academy, Breda, The Netherlands.
| | - Albert C Molewijk
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Centre for Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Suzanne Metselaar
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Rahimzadeh V, Ambe J, de Vries J. Enhancing Reciprocity, Equity and Quality of Ethics Review for Multisite Research During Public Health Crises: The Experience of the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition Ethics Working Group. J Law Med Ethics 2023; 51:258-270. [PMID: 37655583 PMCID: PMC10881265 DOI: 10.1017/jme.2023.75] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/02/2023]
Abstract
In this paper we report findings from a commissioned report to the COVID-19 Clinical Research Coalition on approaches to streamline multinational REC review/approval during public health emergencies. As currently envisioned in the literature, a system of REC mutual recognition is theoretically possible based on shared procedural REC standards, but raises numerous concerns about perceived inequities and mistrust.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jennyfer Ambe
- SAFE MOTHER AND CHILDHOOD RESEARCH INITIATIVE (SAMOCRI), NIGERIA
| | - Jantina de Vries
- DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN AND THE NEUROSCIENCE INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hoon E, Edwards J, Harvey G, Eliott J, Merlin T, Carter D, Moodie S, O'Callaghan G. Establishing a clinical ethics support service: lessons from the first 18 months of a new Australian service - a case study. BMC Med Ethics 2023; 24:62. [PMID: 37568138 PMCID: PMC10422737 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-023-00942-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although the importance of clinical ethics in contemporary clinical environments is established, development of formal clinical ethics services in the Australia health system has, to date, been ad hoc. This study was designed to systematically follow and reflect upon the first 18 months of activity by a newly established service, to examine key barriers and facilitators to establishing a new service in an Australian hospital setting. METHODS HOW THE STUDY WAS PERFORMED AND STATISTICAL TESTS USED: A qualitative case study approach was utilised. The study gathered and analysed data using observations of service committee meetings, document analysis of agendas and minutes, and semi-structured interviews with committee members to generate semantic themes. By interpreting the thematic findings in reference to national capacity building resources, this study also aimed to provide practice-based reflections for other health agencies. RESULTS THE MAIN FINDINGS: An overarching theme identified in the data was a strong commitment to supporting clinicians facing difficult patient care decisions and navigating difficult discussions with patients and families. Another key theme was the role of the new clinical ethics support service in providing clinicians with a pathway to raise system-wide issues with the organisation Executive. While there was strong clinical engagement, consumer and community participation remained a challenge, as did unresolved governance issues and a need for clearer policy relationship between the service and the organisation. Considering these themes in relation to the national capacity building resources, the study identifies three areas likely to require ongoing development and negotiation. These are: the role of the clinical ethics support service as a link between the workforce and the Executive; the incorporation of consumers and patients; and ethical reasoning. To improve the effectiveness of the service, it is necessary to increase clarity on the service's role at the governance and policy level, as well as develop strategies for engaging consumers, patients and families. Finally, the capacity of the service to reflect on complex cases may be enhanced through explicit discussions of various different ethical frameworks and ways of deliberating.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth Hoon
- School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
- Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.
| | - Jessie Edwards
- Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia
| | - Gill Harvey
- College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, PO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia
| | - Jaklin Eliott
- School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia
| | - Tracy Merlin
- School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia
| | - Drew Carter
- School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia
| | - Stewart Moodie
- Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia
| | - Gerry O'Callaghan
- School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, PO Box 5005, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia
- Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Metselaar S, Molewijk B. Fostering moral resilience through moral case deliberation. Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:730-745. [PMID: 37946387 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231183085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
Moral distress forms a major threat to the well-being of healthcare professionals, and is argued to negatively impact patient care. It is associated with emotions such as anger, frustration, guilt, and anxiety. In order to effectively deal with moral distress, the concept of moral resilience is introduced as the positive capacity of an individual to sustain or restore their integrity in response to moral adversity. Interventions are needed that foster moral resilience among healthcare professionals. Ethics consultation has been proposed as such an intervention. In this paper, we add to this proposition by discussing Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) as a specific form of clinical ethics support that promotes moral resilience. We argue that MCD in general may contribute to the moral resilience of healthcare professionals as it promotes moral agency. In addition, we focus on three specific MCD reflection methods: the Dilemma Method, the Aristotelian moral inquiry into emotions, and CURA, a method consisting of four main steps: Concentrate, Unrush, Reflect, and Act. In practice, all three methods are used by nurse ethicists or by nurses who received training to facilitate reflection sessions with these methods. We maintain that these methods also have specific elements that promote moral resilience. However, the Dilemma Method fosters dealing well with tragedy, the latter two promote moral resilience by including attention to emotions as part of the reflection process. We will end with discussing the importance of future empirical research on the impact of MCD on moral resilience, and of comparing MCD with other interventions that seek to mitigate moral distress and promote moral resilience.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne Metselaar
- Department of Ethics, Law, and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bert Molewijk
- Department of Ethics, Law, and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers Location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Johnstone MJ. Nurse ethicists: Innovative resource or ideological aspiration? Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:680-687. [PMID: 37946394 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231191817] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
In recent years, there have been growing calls for nurses to have a formal advanced practice role as nurse ethicists in hospital contexts. Initially proposed in the cultural context of the USA where nurse ethicists have long been recognised, the idea is being advocated in other judications outside of the USA such as the UK, Australia and elsewhere. Such calls are not without controversy, however. Underpinning this controversy are ongoing debates about the theoretical, methodological and political dimensions of clinical ethics support services generally, and more recently where nurses might 'fit' within such a service. In considering whether nurse ethicists ought to have a place in clinical ethics support services, a number of questions arise such as: Is such a role warranted? If so, what credentials should nurses assuming the title of 'nurse ethicist' be required to have? What standards of practice ought nurse ethicists be required to uphold? What is the ultimate role and function of nurse ethicists in hospital contexts? And in what contexts might a nurse ethicist be most useful? In this essay, brief attention will be given to addressing these questions. It will be concluded that, as a minimum, nurses wishing to assume an advanced nursing practice role as a nurse ethicist must have substantive grounding in the foundational knowledge of the disciplines of both moral philosophy and nursing ethics. They must also not lose sight of the ultimate goal of nursing ethics, notably, to promote and advance ethical nursing practice and the provision of 'good' nursing care.
Collapse
|
19
|
Grace PJ, Milliken A. A semantic exploration: Nurse ethicist, medical ethicist, or clinical ethicist: Do distinctions matter? Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:659-670. [PMID: 37946385 DOI: 10.1177/09697330221146251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
Since the 1960s, it has been recognized that "medical ethics," the area of inquiry about the obligations of practitioners of medicine, is inadequate for capturing and addressing the complexities associated with modern medicine, human health, and wellbeing. Subsequently, a new specialty emerged which involved scholars and professionals from a variety of disciplines who had an interest in healthcare ethics. The name adopted is variously biomedical ethics or bioethics. The practice of bioethics in clinical settings is clinical ethics and its primary aim is to resolve patient care issues and conflicts. Nurses are among these clinical ethicists. They are drawn to the study and practice of bioethics and its applications as way to address the problems encountered in practice. A significant number are among the ranks of clinical ethicists. However, in the role of bio- or clinical ethicist, some retained the title of their original profession, calling themselves nurse ethicists, and some did not. In this article, we explore under which conditions it is permissible or preferable that one retains one's prior profession's nomenclature as a prefix to "ethicist," under which conditions it is not, and why. We emphasize the need for transparency of purpose related to titles and their possible influence on individual and social good.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pamela J Grace
- William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
| | - Aimee Milliken
- William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Pilkington B, Giuliante M. Nursing ethics as a distinct entity within bioethics: Implications for clinical ethics practice. Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:671-679. [PMID: 37946388 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231174535] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
The question of whether nursing ethics is a distinct entity within bioethics is an important and thought-provoking one. Though fundamental bioethical principles are appreciated and applied within the practice of nursing ethics, there exist distinct considerations which make nursing ethics a unique subfield of bioethics. In this article, we focus on the importance of relationships as a distinguishing feature of the foundation of nursing ethics, evidenced in its education, practice, and science. Next, we consider two objections to our claim of distinctiveness: first, that nursing ethics is merely an application of bioethical principles; second, that many bioethical subfields emphasize relationships. We respond by highlighting that throughout nursing education and generally in every career path that follows, the creation and nurturing of relationships is emphasized. Compassion and respect for the dignity of every patient is the framework upon which these therapeutic relationships are built. Much of the focus of nursing science rests on creating meaningful interpersonal experiences and human connection. After responding to each objection, we turn to the implications of this distinctiveness on clinical ethics practice, arguing that the strengths of our approach outweigh the limitations. The deep emphasis on creating meaningful interpersonal experiences and human connection supports a greater integration of relationships and social contexts into the evaluation of whether an action is ethically permissible, which is an important benefit in addressing the challenging human situations that patients face. Moreover, this perspective allows nurse ethicists to account for diverse and complex social structures and their influence in making ethical determinations. These strengths outweigh the limitations of potential inconsistencies between nurse and non-nurse clinical ethicists on the same service, a result we attribute to nursing ethics-and, in turn, the practice of the nurse ethicist-being framed by relationships to a larger extent than other bioethical subfields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryan Pilkington
- School of Health and Medical Sciences, College of Nursing, Seton Hall University, Nutley, NJ, USA; Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, NJ, USA
| | - Maryanne Giuliante
- Ethics Department of Northwell Health, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre Regional Network- Westchester, New York, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wolfe ID. Beyond the consult question: Nurse ethicists as architects of moral spaces. Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:710-719. [PMID: 37946395 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231151351] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
Nurse Ethicists bring a unique perspective to clinical ethics consultation. This perspective provides an appreciation of ethical tensions that will exist beyond the consult question into the moral space of patient care. These tensions exist even when an ethically preferable plan of action is identified. Ethically appropriate courses of action can still lead to moral dilemmas for others. The nurse ethicist provides a lens well suited to identify and respond to these dilemmas. The nurse-patient relationship is the ethical foundation of nursing practice and this relational ontology is well suited to addressing ethical dilemmas that exist prior to and beyond the initial consult question. This paper will describe one nurse ethicist's phronetic and pragmatic approach to a clinical ethics consult elucidated through feminist ethics and systems thinking. This paper will describe the theoretical basis for this method, present a case, and describe how this consultation approach provides a rich analysis based around relationships and responsibilities that also highlights the important ethical tensions within the social structure that exists around the patient and continue after the consult question is answered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian D Wolfe
- Children's Minnesota, Clinical Ethics Department, University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Jones J, Ford PJ, Birchley G, Monteverde S. Perspectives on the role of the nurse ethicist. Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:652-658. [PMID: 37946393 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231189034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2023]
Abstract
This paper offers four contrasting perspectives on the role of the nurse ethicist from authors based in different areas of world, with different professional backgrounds and at different career stages. Each author raises questions about how to understand the role of the nurse ethicist. The first author reflects upon their career, the scope and purpose of their work, ultimately arguing that the distinction between 'nurse ethicist' and 'clinical ethicist' is largely irrelevant. The second author describes the impact and value that a nurse in an ethics role plays, highlighting the 'tacit knowledge' and 'lived experience' they bring to clinical ethics consultation. However, the second author also warns that the 'nurse ethicist' must be cautious in their approach to avoid being viewed as a resource only for nurses. The third author questions the introduction of additional professional distinctions such as 'nurse ethicist' on the basis that distinctions threaten the creation of egalitarian healthcare systems, while also acknowledging that clinical ethicists ought not strive for objective attachment in their work. In direct contrast, the final author suggests that the nurse ethicist can play a pivotal role in highlighting and addressing ethical challenges that are specific to nurses. These four short pieces raise questions and point to concepts that will be expanded upon and debated throughout this special issue of Nursing Ethics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jenny Jones
- Retired, Metro South Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Paul J Ford
- Neuroethics Program, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Giles Birchley
- Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Settimio Monteverde
- School of Health Professions, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Feldman SL, Johnston C. Legal Liability of Clinical Ethics Services in Australia: "Should I Be More Worried Than I Am?". J Law Med 2023; 30:345-357. [PMID: 38303619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2024]
Abstract
A key function of clinical ethics services (CESs) is to provide decision-making support to health care providers in ethically challenging cases. Cases referred for ethics consultation are likely to involve diverging views or conflict, or to confront the boundaries of appropriate medical practice. Such cases might also attract legal action due to their contentious nature. As CESs become more prevalent in Australia, this article considers the potential legal liability of a CES and its members. With no reported litigation against a CES in Australia, we look to international experience and first principles. We consider the prospects of a claim in negligence, the most likely legal action against a CES, through application of legal principles to a hypothetical case scenario. We conclude that, although unlikely to be successful at this time, a CES could face answerable claims in negligence brought by patients (and families) who are the subject of ethics case consultation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon L Feldman
- PhD Candidate, University of Melbourne Department of Paediatrics
| | - Carolyn Johnston
- Research Fellow University of Tasmania, Honorary Senior Fellow (Law), University of Melbourne
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Wälivaara BM, Zingmark K. Descriptions of long-term impact from inter-professional ethics communication in groups. Nurs Ethics 2023; 30:614-625. [PMID: 36920799 PMCID: PMC10637078 DOI: 10.1177/09697330231160007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND On a daily basis, healthcare professionals deal with various ethical issues and it can be difficult to determine how to act best. Clinical ethics support (CES) has been developed to provide support for healthcare professionals dealing with complex ethical issues. A long-term perspective of participating in inter-professional dialogue and reflective-based CES sessions is seemingly sparse in the literature. RESEARCH AIM The aim was to describe experiences of impact of Inter-professional Ethics Communication in groups (IEC) based on Habermas' theory of communicative actions, after 6 months from the perspective of an inter-professional team. RESEARCH DESIGN A qualitative inductive approach was chosen, and individual interviews (n = 13) were conducted. Interview data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. PARTICIPANTS The participants, 10 females and two males, represented assistant nurses, registered nurses, physicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, welfare officers and psychologists. Each had attended at least four IEC sessions. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS The study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå, Sweden, and it has been undertaken in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. FINDINGS Overall, the descriptions expressed a perceived achievement of a deepened and integrated ethical awareness that increased the participants' awareness of ethically difficult situations as well as their own ethical thinking, actions and approaches in daily work. Perspectives were shared and the team become more welded. They carried the memories of the reflections within them, which was perceived as supportive when encountered new ethically situations. DISCUSSION Putting words to unarticulated thoughts may stimulate repeated reflections, leading to new insights and alternative thoughts. CONCLUSION The outcome of IEC sessions 6 months following the last session can be described as an incorporated knowledge that enables actions in ethically difficult situations based on an ethical awareness both at a 'We-level' and an 'I-level'.
Collapse
|
25
|
Schupmann W. "We are not the ethics police": The professionalization of clinical ethicists and the regulation of medical decision-making. Soc Sci Med 2023; 322:115808. [PMID: 36854201 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115808] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2022] [Revised: 02/22/2023] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 02/26/2023]
Abstract
Clinical ethicists represent a growing profession in U.S. healthcare. This profession's aspirations include serving as a supportive resource to hospital staff, but also as an ethics "watchdog," ensuring that medical decision-making adheres to ethical standards. Drawing on 31 in-depth interviews conducted in 2021 of clinical ethicists working across the U.S., I evaluate the extent to which these watchdog aspirations have been achieved. I investigate ethicists' success in leveraging three strategies aspiring professions have used to secure their jurisdictional claims: acquiring professional expertise, securing administrative authority, and cultivating trusting relationships. I show that ethicists face barriers to leveraging each, which has consequences for how ethical dilemmas are resolved. Findings point to challenges aspiring professions must overcome in order to claim jurisdictions posing a threat to incumbent professions; the tensions that exist between legal risk management and clinical ethics; and the organizational strategies marginal actors leverage to advance their interests and influence the delivery of healthcare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Will Schupmann
- Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Blackler L, Scharf AE, Matsoukas K, Colletti M, Voigt LP. Call to action: empowering patients and families to initiate clinical ethics consultations. J Med Ethics 2023; 49:240-243. [PMID: 34732393 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2021] [Accepted: 10/19/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Clinical ethics consultations exist to support patients, families and clinicians who are facing ethical or moral challenges related to patient care. They provide a forum for open communication, where all stakeholders are encouraged to express their concerns and articulate their viewpoints. Ethics consultations can be requested by patients, caregivers or members of a patient's clinical or supportive team. Although patients and by extension their families (especially in cases of decisional incapacity) are the common denominators in most ethics consultations, these constituents are the least likely to request them. At many healthcare organisations in the USA, ethics consultations are overwhelmingly requested by physicians and other clinicians. We believe it is vital that healthcare institutions bridge the knowledge gaps and power imbalances over access to ethics consultation services through augmented policies, procedures and infrastructure. With enhanced education and support, patients and families may use ethics consultation to elevate their voices and prioritise their unique characteristics and preferences in the delivery of their healthcare. Empowering patients and families to request ethics consultation can only strengthen the patient/family-clinician relationship, enhance the shared decision-making model of care and ultimately lead to improved patient-centred care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liz Blackler
- Ethics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Amy E Scharf
- Ethics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Konstantina Matsoukas
- Ethics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Technology Division, Library Services, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Michelle Colletti
- Ethics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Louis P Voigt
- Ethics Committee, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Anesthesiology, Pain, and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Dewar B, Chevrier S, De Meulemeester J, Fedyk M, Rodriguez R, Kitto S, Saginur R, Shamy M. What do we talk about when we talk about "equipoise"? Stakeholder interviews assessing the use of equipoise in clinical research ethics. Trials 2023; 24:203. [PMID: 36934250 PMCID: PMC10024829 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-023-07221-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 03/06/2023] [Indexed: 03/19/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Equipoise, generally defined as uncertainty about the relative effects of the treatments being compared in a trial, is frequently referenced as an ethical standard for the conduct of randomized clinical trials. However, it seems to be defined in several different ways and may be used differently by different individuals. We explored how clinical researchers, chairs of research ethics boards, and philosophers of science define and reason with this term. METHODS We completed semi-structured interviews about clinical trial ethics with 15 clinical researchers, 15 research ethics board chairs, and 15 philosophers of science/bioethicists. Each participant was asked a standardized set of 10 questions, 4 of which were specifically about equipoise. All interviews were conducted telephonically and transcribed. Responses were grouped and analysed via a modified grounded theory method. RESULTS Forty-three respondents defined equipoise in 7 logically distinct ways, and 2 respondents could not explicitly define it. The most common definition, offered by 14 respondents (31%), defined "equipoise" as a disagreement at the level of a community of physicians. There was significant variability in definitions offered between and within groups. When asked how they would "operationalize" equipoise - i.e. check or test for its presence - respondents provided 7 alternatives, the most common being in relation to a literature review (15/45, 33%). The vast majority of respondents (35/45, 78%) felt the concept was helpful, though many acknowledged that the lack of a clear definition or operationalization was problematic. CONCLUSION There is significant variation in definitions of equipoise offered by respondents, suggesting that parties within groups and between groups may be referring to different concepts when they reference "equipoise". This non-uniformity may impact fairness and transparency and opens the door to potential ethical problems in the evaluation of clinical trials - for instance, a patient may understand equipoise very differently than the researchers enrolling her in a trial, which could cause her agreement to participate to be based upon false premises.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian Dewar
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | | | - Mark Fedyk
- University of California, Davis, Davis, USA
| | | | - Simon Kitto
- Department of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | | | - Michel Shamy
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
- Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Nicoli F, Grossi AA, Testa J, Picozzi M. The Circle Method: A Novel Approach to Clinical Ethics Consultation. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:79-91. [PMID: 36940352 DOI: 10.1086/723428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2023]
Abstract
AbstractDifferent methods are available in clinical ethics consultation. In our experience as ethics consultants, certain individual methods have proven insufficient, and so we use a combination of methods. Based on these considerations, we first critically analyze the pros and cons of two well-known methods in the working field of clinical ethics, namely Beauchamp and Childress's four-principle approach and Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade's four-box method. We then present the circle method, which we have used and refined during several clinical ethics consultations in the hospital setting.
Collapse
|
29
|
Angelos P. Introduction: The Journal of Clinical Ethics, the MacLean Center, and the Future of Clinical Ethics. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:1-4. [PMID: 36940348 DOI: 10.1086/723843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2023]
|
30
|
Crutchfield P, Gibb TS, Redinger MJ. Default Positions in Clinical Ethics. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:258-269. [PMID: 37831647 DOI: 10.1086/726809] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/15/2023]
Abstract
AbstractDefault positions, predetermined starting points that aid in complex decision-making, are common in clinical medicine. In this article, we identify and critically examine common default positions in clinical ethics practice. Whether default positions ought to be held is an important normative question, but here we are primarily interested in the descriptive, rather than normative, properties of default positions. We argue that default positions in clinical ethics function to protect and promote important values in medicine-respect for persons, utility, and justice. Further, default positions in clinical ethics may also guard against harm. Where default positions exist, there are epistemic burdens to overturn them. The person wishing to reject the default position, rather than the person endorsing it, bears this burden. The person who bears the burden of meeting the epistemic requirements must provide evidence proportional to the degree of harm the default position protects against. Default positions that protect against significant harm impose significant epistemic requirements to overturn. This asymmetry not only makes medical decision-making more economical but also serves to promote and protect certain values. The identification and analysis of common and recognizable default positions can help to identify other default positions and the conditions under which their associated epistemic requirements are met. The article concludes with considerations of potential problems with the use of default positions in clinical ethics.
Collapse
|
31
|
Vo H, Campelia GD, Olszewski AE. Addressing Racism in Ethics Consultation: An Expansion of the Four-Box Method. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:11-26. [PMID: 36940357 DOI: 10.1086/723322] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2023]
Abstract
AbstractRacism is a pervasive issue in patient care and a key social determinant of health. Clinical ethicists, like others involved in patient care, have a duty to recognize and respond to racism on both individual and systems-wide levels to improve patient care. Doing so can be challenging and, like other skills in ethics consultation, may benefit from specialized training, standardized tools and approaches, and practice. Learning from existing frameworks and tools, as well as building new ones, can help guide clinical ethicists to systematically approach racism as it affects clinical cases. Here, we propose an expansion of the commonly used four-box method to clinical ethics consultation, where racism is considered as a potential factor in each of the four boxes. We apply this method to two clinical cases to highlight ethically salient information that might be missed using the standard formulation of the four boxes but captured with the expanded version. We argue that this expansion of an existing clinical ethics consultation tool is ethically justified insofar as it (a) creates a more just approach, (b) supports individual consultants and services, and (c) facilitates communication in contexts where racism impinges on effecting good patient care.
Collapse
|
32
|
Mubarak E, Kaur S, Min MTK, Hughes MT, Rushton CH, Ali J. Emerging Experiences with Virtual Clinical Ethics Consultation: Case Studies from the United States and Malaysia. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:51-57. [PMID: 36940355 PMCID: PMC10184515 DOI: 10.1086/723317] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2023]
Abstract
AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has inspired numerous opportunities for telehealth implementation to meet diverse healthcare needs, including the use of virtual communication platforms to facilitate the growth of and access to clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services across the globe. Here we discuss the conceptualization and implementation of two different virtual CEC services that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic: the Clinical Ethics Malaysia COVID-19 Consultation Service and the Johns Hopkins Hospital Ethics Committee and Consultation Service. A common strength experienced by both platforms during virtual delivery included improved ability for local practitioners to address consultation needs for patient populations otherwise unable to access CEC services in their respective locations. Additionally, virtual platforms allowed for enhanced collaboration and sharing of expertise among ethics consultants. Both contexts encountered numerous challenges related to patient care delivery during the pandemic. The use of virtual technologies resulted in decreased personalization of patient-provider communication. We discuss these challenges with respect to contextual differences specific to each service and setting, including differences in CEC needs, sociocultural norms, resource availability, populations served, consultation service visibility, healthcare infrastructure, and funding disparities. Through lessons learned from a health system in the United States and a national service in Malaysia, we provide key recommendations for health practitioners and clinical ethics consultants to leverage virtual communication platforms to mitigate existing inequities in patient care delivery and increase capacity for CEC globally.
Collapse
|
33
|
Bolton J. What Do We Do When We "Do" Clinical Ethics? A Primer. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:110-115. [PMID: 36940351 DOI: 10.1086/723319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2023]
Abstract
AbstractThis article presents a model for doing clinical ethics consultations. It describes four phases of a consultation: investigation, assessment, action, and review. The consultant must identify the problem and determine whether it is a nonmoral problem (e.g., lack of information) or a moral problem involving uncertainty or conflict. The consultant must be able to identify the types of moral arguments that are used by participants to the situation. A simplified taxonomy of moral arguments is presented. The consultant must then assess the arguments for their cogency and identify where they align and where they conflict. The action phase of the consultation involves finding ways for the arguments to be presented and hopefully reconciled. The normative limitations to the role of the consultant are described.
Collapse
|
34
|
Schuman O, Romero HG. Using Patient Quotations in Chart Notes: A Clinical Ethics Perspective. J Clin Ethics 2023; 34:352-355. [PMID: 37991735 DOI: 10.1086/727438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2023]
Abstract
AbstractPer the OpenNotes directive of the 21st Century Cures Act implemented in 2021, patients and their legally recognized representatives must be able to access the electronic medical record in real time. This is an opportunity for clinical ethicists and other providers to reflect on their charting practices, particularly how and when they quote patients. Although using direct quotations is common because it seems to avoid misinterpretation, it may not always be appropriate. In this article, we discuss some of the risks and benefits of quoting in the context of OpenNotes and provide suggestions for how clinical ethicists can leverage their unique position to help mitigate some of these risks and promote more reflective charting practices among the teams they work with.
Collapse
|
35
|
Rauprich O, Marckmann G, Schildmann J. Relevance of a normative framework for evaluating the impact of clinical ethics support services in healthcare. J Med Ethics 2022; 48:987-988. [PMID: 36442970 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2022] [Accepted: 11/03/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Oliver Rauprich
- Institute for Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Georg Marckmann
- Institute for Ethics, History, and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jan Schildmann
- Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Centre for Health Sciences, Medical Faculty of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Meier LJ, Hein A, Diepold K, Buyx A. Clinical Ethics - To Compute, or Not to Compute? Am J Bioeth 2022; 22:W1-W4. [PMID: 36205553 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2127970] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas J Meier
- University of Cambridge
- Technical University of Munich
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Grote T. Randomised controlled trials in medical AI: ethical considerations. J Med Ethics 2022; 48:899-906. [PMID: 33990429 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Revised: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a surge of high-profile publications on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for medical diagnosis and prognosis. While AI provides various opportunities for medical practice, there is an emerging consensus that the existing studies show considerable deficits and are unable to establish the clinical benefit of AI systems. Hence, the view that the clinical benefit of AI systems needs to be studied in clinical trials-particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-is gaining ground. However, an issue that has been overlooked so far in the debate is that, compared with drug RCTs, AI RCTs require methodological adjustments, which entail ethical challenges. This paper sets out to develop a systematic account of the ethics of AI RCTs by focusing on the moral principles of clinical equipoise, informed consent and fairness. This way, the objective is to animate further debate on the (research) ethics of medical AI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Grote
- Ethics and Philosophy Lab, Cluster of Excellence "Machine Learning: New Perspectives for Science", University of Tübingen, Tübingen D-72076, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Sanchini V, Crico C, Casali PG, Pravettoni G. Measuring the impact of clinical ethics support services: further points for consideration. J Med Ethics 2022; 48:877-878. [PMID: 36316032 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/28/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Virginia Sanchini
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milano, Italy
| | - Chiara Crico
- Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Napoli, Italy
| | - Paolo G Casali
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milano, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Garrett JR, Moskop JC, Parker JC. Against Multiplying Clinical Ethics Standards without Necessity: The Case for Parsimony in Evaluating Decision-making Capacity. Am J Bioeth 2022; 22:87-89. [PMID: 36332054 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2123994] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
|
40
|
Brummett A, Eberl JT. The many metaphysical commitments of secular clinical ethics: Expanding the argument for a moral-metaphysical proceduralism. Bioethics 2022; 36:783-793. [PMID: 35527699 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13046] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2021] [Revised: 02/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/08/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
The rich moral diversity of academic bioethics poses a paradox for the practice of giving moral recommendations in secular clinical ethics: How are ethicists to provide moral guidance in a pluralistic society? The field has responded to this challenge with a "procedural approach," but defining this term stirs debate. Some have championed a contentless proceduralism, where ethicists work only to help negotiate resolutions among stakeholders without making any moral recommendations. Others have defended a moral proceduralism by claiming that ethicists should make moral recommendations that are grounded in bioethical consensus (e.g., relevant law, policy, professional consensus statements, and bioethics literature), which is secured using moral principles such as respect for persons or justice. In contrast, we develop a moral-metaphysical proceduralism by identifying many metaphysical commitments in points of secular bioethical consensus. The moral-metaphysical view of secular clinical ethics is important because it challenges the discipline to accept the substantive philosophical foundations required to support giving moral recommendations in a pluralistic context, which may lead to further insights about the nature of the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abram Brummett
- Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine, Royal Oak Beaumont Hospital, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
| | - Jason T Eberl
- Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Lanphier E, Anani UE. Enriching the Theory and Practice of Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation. Am J Bioeth 2022; 22:W7-W9. [PMID: 35972312 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2110991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth Lanphier
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
- University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
| | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Abstract
Machine intelligence already helps medical staff with a number of tasks. Ethical decision-making, however, has not been handed over to computers. In this proof-of-concept study, we show how an algorithm based on Beauchamp and Childress' prima-facie principles could be employed to advise on a range of moral dilemma situations that occur in medical institutions. We explain why we chose fuzzy cognitive maps to set up the advisory system and how we utilized machine learning to train it. We report on the difficult task of operationalizing the principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and patient autonomy, and describe how we selected suitable input parameters that we extracted from a training dataset of clinical cases. The first performance results are promising, but an algorithmic approach to ethics also comes with several weaknesses and limitations. Should one really entrust the sensitive domain of clinical ethics to machine intelligence?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lukas J Meier
- Technical University of Munich
- University of Cambridge
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
|
44
|
Bhattarai S, Adhikari A, Rayamajhee B, Dhungana J, Singh M, Koirala S, Shakya DR. Participatory Approach to Develop Evidence-Based Clinical Ethics Guidelines for the Care of COVID-19 Patients: A Mixed Method Study From Nepal. Front Public Health 2022; 10:873881. [PMID: 35832276 PMCID: PMC9272001 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.873881] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/11/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
During health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers face numerous ethical challenges while catering to the needs of patients in healthcare settings. Although the data recapitulating high-income countries ethics frameworks are available, the challenges faced by clinicians in resource-limited settings of low- and middle-income countries are not discussed widely due to a lack of baseline data or evidence. The Nepali healthcare system, which is chronically understaffed and underequipped, was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in its capacity to manage health services and resources for needy patients, leading to ethical dilemmas and challenges during clinical practice. This study aimed to develop a standard guideline that would address syndemic ethical dilemmas during clinical care of COVID-19 patients who are unable to afford standard-of-care. A mixed method study was conducted between February and June of 2021 in 12 government designated COVID-19 treatment hospitals in central Nepal. The draft guideline was discussed among the key stakeholders in the pandemic response in Nepal. The major ethical dilemmas confronted by the study participants (50 healthcare professionals providing patient care at COVID-19 treatment hospitals) could be grouped into five major pillars of ethical clinical practice: rational allocation of medical resources, updated treatment protocols that guide clinical decisions, standard-of-care regardless of patient's economic status, effective communication among stakeholders for prompt patient care, and external factors such as political and bureaucratic interference affecting ethical practice. This living clinical ethics guideline, which has been developed based on the local evidence and case stories of frontline responders, is expected to inform the policymakers as well as the decision-makers positioned at the concerned government units. These ethics guidelines could be endorsed with revisions by the concerned regulatory authorities for the use during consequent waves of COVID-19 and other epidemics that may occur in the future. Other countries affected by the pandemic could conduct similar studies to explore ethical practices in the local clinical and public health context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suraj Bhattarai
- Department of Global Health, Global Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies (GIIS), Kathmandu, Nepal
| | - Anurag Adhikari
- Department of Infection and Immunology, Kathmandu Research Institute for Biological Sciences (KRIBS), Lalitpur, Nepal
| | - Binod Rayamajhee
- Department of Infection and Immunology, Kathmandu Research Institute for Biological Sciences (KRIBS), Lalitpur, Nepal
- School of Optometry and Vision Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jaya Dhungana
- Department of Global Health, Global Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies (GIIS), Kathmandu, Nepal
| | - Minu Singh
- Department of Infection and Immunology, Kathmandu Research Institute for Biological Sciences (KRIBS), Lalitpur, Nepal
| | - Sarun Koirala
- Department of Anatomy, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences (BPKIHS), Dharan, Nepal
- Nepali Unit of International Chair in Bioethics, Dharan, Nepal
| | - Dhana Ratna Shakya
- Nepali Unit of International Chair in Bioethics, Dharan, Nepal
- Department of Psychiatry, B.P. Koirala Institute of Health Sciences (BPKIHS), Dharan, Nepal
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Haltaufderheide J, Nadolny S, Vollmann J, Schildmann J. Framework for evaluation research on clinical ethical case interventions: the role of ethics consultants. J Med Ethics 2022; 48:401-406. [PMID: 34006601 PMCID: PMC9132864 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107129] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2020] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Evaluation of clinical ethical case consultations has been discussed as an important research task in recent decades. A rigid framework of evaluation is essential to improve quality of consultations and, thus, quality of patient care. Different approaches to evaluate those services appropriately and to determine adequate empirical endpoints have been proposed. A key challenge is to provide an answer to the question as to which empirical endpoints-and for what reasons-should be considered when evaluating the quality of a service. In this paper, we argue for an approach that adopts the role of ethics consultants as its point of departure. In a first step, we describe empirical and ethical characteristics of evaluating clinical ethical case. We show that the mode of action and the explicit normative character of the interventions constitute two characteristics which pose challenges to the selection of appropriate quality criteria and require special attention. In a second step, we outline the way in which an analysis of the role of ethics consultants in the context of a clinical ethical case consultation services can account for the existing challenges by linking empirically measurable endpoints with normative theory. Finally, we discuss practical implications of our model for evaluation research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stephan Nadolny
- Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
- Nursing Science Staff Unit, Franziskus Hospital Harderberg, Niels-Stensen-Kliniken, Germany
| | - Jochen Vollmann
- Institute for Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany
| | - Jan Schildmann
- Institute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Metselaar S, van Schaik M, Widdershoven G. CURA: A clinical ethics support instrument for caregivers in palliative care. Nurs Ethics 2022; 29:1562-1577. [PMID: 35622018 PMCID: PMC9667086 DOI: 10.1177/09697330221074014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
This article presents an ethics support instrument for healthcare professionals
called CURA. It is designed with a focus on and together with nurses and nurse
assistants in palliative care. First, we shortly go into the background and the
development study of the instrument. Next, we describe the four steps CURA
prescribes for ethical reflection: (1) Concentrate, (2) Unrush, (3) Reflect, and
(4) Act. In order to demonstrate how CURA can structure a moral reflection among
caregivers, we discuss how a case was discussed with CURA at a psychogeriatric
ward of an elderly care home. Furthermore, we go into some considerations
regarding the use of the instrument in clinical practice. Finally, we focus on
the need for further research on the effectiveness and implementation of
CURA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suzanne Metselaar
- Suzanne Metselaar, Department of Ethics,
Law & Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, De Boelelaan 1089a,
Amsterdam 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Cruz Rivera S, Aiyegbusi OL, Ives J, Draper H, Mercieca-Bebber R, Ells C, Hunn A, Scott JA, Fernandez CV, Dickens AP, Anderson N, Bhatnagar V, Bottomley A, Campbell L, Collett C, Collis P, Craig K, Davies H, Golub R, Gosden L, Gnanasakthy A, Haf Davies E, von Hildebrand M, Lord JM, Mahendraratnam N, Miyaji T, Morel T, Monteiro J, Zwisler ADO, Peipert JD, Roydhouse J, Stover AM, Wilson R, Yap C, Calvert MJ. Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines. JAMA 2022; 327:1910-1919. [PMID: 35579638 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2022.6421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. OBJECTIVE To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. EVIDENCE REVIEW The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. FINDINGS Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samantha Cruz Rivera
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- DEMAND Hub, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Centre West Midlands, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Jonathan Ives
- Centre for Ethics in Medicine, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Heather Draper
- Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Carolyn Ells
- School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | | | - Jane A Scott
- PRO Center of Excellence, Global Commercial Strategy Organization, Janssen Global Services, Warrington, United Kingdom
| | - Conrad V Fernandez
- Division of Pediatric Haematology-Oncology, IWK Health Care Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
| | - Andrew P Dickens
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Midview City, Singapore
| | - Nicola Anderson
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | | | - Andrew Bottomley
- European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Lisa Campbell
- Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Philip Collis
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Patient partner, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Kathrine Craig
- Fast Track Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority, London, United Kingdom
| | - Hugh Davies
- Fast Track Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Lesley Gosden
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Patient partner, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Maria von Hildebrand
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Patient partner, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Janet M Lord
- MRC-Versus Arthritis Centre for Musculoskeletal Ageing Research, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | | | - Tempei Miyaji
- Department of Clinical Trial Data Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Thomas Morel
- Global Patient-Centred Outcomes Research & Policy, UCB, Belgium, Brussels
| | | | - Ann-Dorthe Olsen Zwisler
- Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Clinical Institute, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - John Devin Peipert
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Jessica Roydhouse
- Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Tasmania, Australia
- Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island
| | | | - Roger Wilson
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Consumer Forum, National Cancer Research Institute, London, United Kingdom
- Patient Involvement Network, Health Research Authority, London, United Kingdom
| | - Christina Yap
- Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Melanie J Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- DEMAND Hub, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Centre West Midlands, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University Hospital Birmingham and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Health Data Research United Kingdom, London, United Kingdom
- UK SPINE, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Lanphier E, Anani UE. Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation. Am J Bioeth 2022; 22:45-57. [PMID: 33684027 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2021.1887963] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
We argue for the addition of trauma informed awareness, training, and skill in clinical ethics consultation by proposing a novel framework for Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation (TIEC). This approach expands on the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) framework for, and key insights from feminist approaches to, ethics consultation, and the literature on trauma informed care (TIC). TIEC keeps ethics consultation in line with the provision of TIC in other clinical settings. Most crucially, TIEC (like TIC) is systematically sensitive to culture, history, difference, power, social exclusion, oppression, and marginalization. By engaging a neonatal intensive care ethics consult example, we define our TIEC approach and illustrate its application. Through TIEC we argue it is the role of ethics consultants to not only hold open moral spaces, but to furnish them in morally habitable ways for all stakeholders involved in the ethics consultation process, including patients, surrogates, and practitioners.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth Lanphier
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center
- University of Cincinnati College of Medicine
| | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
Because America has a foundation of anti-Black racism, being born Black in this nation yields an identity that breeds the consequences of a chronic condition. This article highlights several ways in which medicine and clinical ethics, despite the former's emphasis on doing no harm and the latter's emphasis on nonmaleficence, fail to address or acknowledge some of the key ways in which physicians can-and do-harm patients of color. To understand harm in a way that can provide real substance for ethical standards in the practice of medicine, physicians need to think about how treatment decisions are constrained by a patient's race. The color of one's skin can and does negatively affect the quality of a person's diagnosis, promoted care plan, and prognosis. Yet racism in medicine and bioethics persist-because a racist system serves the interests of the dominant caste, White people. As correctives to this system, the authors propose several antiracist commitments physicians or ethicists can make.
Collapse
|
50
|
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa Rosenbaum
- Dr. Rosenbaum is a national correspondent for the Journal
| |
Collapse
|