Narrative inquiry in bioethics最新文献

James Groves opens his 1978 foundational article, "Taking Care of the Hateful Patient," thusly, "Admitted or not, the fact remains that a few patients kindle aversion, fear, despair, or even downright malice in their doctors." Groves understood his article as pulling back the curtain on an experience that physicians had but that few dared discuss without shame. His taxonomy of four types of "hateful" patients: clingers, entitled demanders, manipulative help rejectors, and self-destructive deniers may still be instructive. However, the intervening years have revealed that this taxonomy does not adequately capture the nuances present when patients are described as "difficult." This issue of Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics situates this complexity. Different kinds of providers in a variety of healthcare delivering institutions have offered accounts of their own interactions with so-called difficult patients. In each of these stories, the providers tell the reader how the providers were transformed through these interactions: what they learned about their patients, what they learned about patient care, what they could have done differently or better, and what lessons they have taken with them into subsequent encounters.

There is a growing trend of refusal of blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors. We highlight three cases where parents have refused blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors on behalf of their children in the setting of congenital cardiac surgery. These families have also requested accommodations such as explicit identification of blood from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, directed donation from a COVID-19 unvaccinated family member, or use of a non-standard blood supplier. We address the ethical challenges posed by these issues. We describe the current screening and safety processes for standard blood donation and explore the importance of donor anonymity and challenges with directed donation and non-standard blood suppliers. We present an ethical framework using the Best Interest Standard, the Zone of Parental Discretion, and the Harm Principle when considering these refusals. Finally, we provide recommendations for how to approach these requests as they potentially become more commonplace in pediatrics.

In 12 narratives, medical workers from Afghanistan, Darfur, Gaza, Iraq, Israel, Myanmar, and Ukraine describe the day-to-day challenges of providing quality medical care in austere conflict zones. Faced with severe shortages of supplies, overwhelmed by sick and injured civilians and soldiers, and subject to constant attacks on medical personnel and facilities, the contributors to this collection confront difficult dilemmas of justice, medical impartiality, neutrality, burnout, and moral injury as they struggle to fulfill their duties as medical professionals, military officers, and conscientious citizens.

'War is definitely hell on earth'. All too often, we hope the hell will be short-lived, over in a few days, and yet, as we know from experience, hell can go on and on and on. For healthcare workers who provide care to victims of conflict, the work raises many ethical dilemmas. The stories showcased in this edition of NIB share the experiences of a handful of brave individuals and how they navigated their professional ethical obligations as well as their personal convictions during times of conflict. Adeptly portrayed are various approaches to ethical dilemmas, such as adhering to the ethical imperative of medical impartiality, the limits of professional and personal responsibility, coping with moral distress, and the power of humanity, evident through the collective efforts of strangers to help others. This commentary reflects on the ethical grey zones of being a healthcare provider in conflict, as there is no single right way of fulfilling professional obligations, each context being different. As several stories highlight, whilst stressful, the solidarity and comradery of working in a healthcare team can provide great support, purpose, and motivation.