Journal of Medical Ethics最新文献

What does it mean to be a bioethicist? How should the role(s) of bioethics be understood in the context of a world of intense value conflict and polarisation? Bioethics is-in all its various forms and traditions-potentially well-positioned to contribute to addressing many of the most pressing challenges of value polarisation and conflict in diverse societies. However, realising this potential is going to require moving beyond currently foregrounded methods and developing new models for engaging with moral disagreement. This paper proposes an approach, 'adversarial cooperation,' drawing on the concepts of 'adversarial collaboration' from the sciences and 'antagonistic cooperation' from the humanities. Adversarial cooperation aims to combine the rigour and structured methodology of adversarial collaboration with the cultural sensitivity and expansive vision of antagonistic cooperation. The paper also addresses key challenges to adversarial cooperation, including ethical considerations, tensions between substantive and procedural values, the problem of misinformation and the need for decision-making amidst ongoing disagreement. Ultimately, adversarial cooperation suggests a reimagining of bioethical expertise, emphasising skills in mediation, the arts and humanities and participatory decision-making alongside established philosophical competencies. This implies a model of normative bioethical authority grounded in the ability to facilitate inclusive and trustworthy processes of moral deliberation. Realising the potential of adversarial cooperation will require significant changes in bioethics training and practice, as well as a commitment to reflexivity, humility and the amplification of marginalised voices. By embracing this approach, bioethics can play a vital role in navigating the complex moral landscapes of pluralistic societies.

In his recent paper Hatherley discusses four reasons given to support mandatory disclosure of the use of machine learning technologies in healthcare, and provides counters to each of these reasons. While I agree with Hatherley's conclusion that such disclosures should not be mandatory (at least not in an upfront fashion), I raise some problems with his counters to the materiality argument. Finally, I raise another potential problem that exists in a democratic society: that even if Hatherley's (and other authors who share his conclusions) arguments are sound, in a democratic society the simple fact that most people might wish for such disclosures to be made might be an enough compelling reason to make such disclosures mandatory.

Some bioethicists argue that a doctor may frame treatment options in terms of effects on survival rather than on mortality in order to influence patients to choose the better option. The debate over such framing typically assumes that the survival and mortality frames convey the same numerical information. However, certain empirical findings contest this numerical equivalence assumption, demonstrating that framing effects may in fact be due to the two frames implying different information about the numerical bounds of survival and mortality rates. In this paper, I use these findings to argue that framing is presumptively wrong because it violates the duty of proper disclosure. Along the way, I highlight morally relevant features affecting the permissibility of framing, tackle three objections and draw some general lessons for the ethics of nudging.

Gaps in funded cancer medicines between New Zealand and Australia can have significant implications for patients and their families. Pharmac, the New Zealand pharmaceutical funding agency, has been criticised for not funding enough cancer medicines, and a 2022 review identified ethical concerns about its utilitarian focus on efficiency. However, as the costs of new cancer medicines rise along with public and political pressure to fund them, questions about value for money remain critical for health systems worldwide. In this paper, we compare funding for cancer medicines in New Zealand and Australia, specifically medicines for non-small cell lung cancer. We argue that the ethical imperatives on funding agencies to get value for money and provide medicines for patients with cancer underscore the importance of transparent decision-making processes, including identifying and explaining intercountry differences in funded medicines.

Purpose: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada places the medical provider at the centre of the process. The MAiD provider holds primary responsibility for determining eligibility and becomes acquainted with patients' inner desires and expressions of suffering. This is followed by the MAiD procedure of administering the lethal agent and being present at the death of eligible patients. We report participants' perceptions of the emotional and moral impacts of this role.

Methodology: Two years after MAiD was legalised in Canada, 22 early-adopting physician providers were interviewed. Data were examined using both phenomenological analysis and a novel ChatGPT-enhanced analysis of an anonymised subset of interview excerpts.

Findings: Participants described MAiD as emotionally provocative with both challenges and rewards. Providers expressed a positive moral impact when helping to optimise a patient's autonomy and moral comfort with their role in relieving suffering. Providers experienced tensions around professional duty and balancing self with service to others. Personal choice and patient gratitude enhanced the provider experience, while uncertainty and conflict added difficulty.

Conclusions: Participants described MAiD provision as strongly aligned with a patient-centred ethos of practice. This study suggests that, despite challenges, providing MAiD can be a meaningful and satisfying practice for physicians. Understanding the emotional and moral impact and factors that enhance or detract from the providers' experience allows future stakeholders to design and regulate assisted dying in ways congruent with the interests of patients, providers, families and society.