Journal of Clinical Ethics最新文献

Patients and surgeons participate in shared decision making when they make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the patient's goals, values, and preferences. Surgical treatment is pursued when the potential benefits outweigh the risks, the burdens of treatment are acceptable, and no other alternatives are more appropriate for meeting the patient's goals of care. Acute care surgical problems require shared decision making, often with constraining factors that include the time-sensitive and life-threatening nature of acute surgical disease, absence of a patient's decision-making capacity, and lack of a preexisting relationship between the patient and surgeon. These factors may create ethical challenges for acute care surgeons who care for these patients.

Our society's professions, including the health professions, have long overlooked the possibility that one might learn something valuable about one's own profession's ethics by studying the ethics of other professions. Reflecting on the preceding article by Ritwik, Patterson, and Alfonzo-Echeverri, one can identify important similarities between dentistry's professional ethics and the ethics of the other health professions. But there are also important differences between these professions' ethics that should prompt reflection on the reasons for these differences, perhaps challenge something that has been taken for granted in one's own profession, and in any case facilitate better mutual understanding and more effective inter-professional collaboration.

The legal and ethical asymmetry between honoring positive claims of conscience versus negative claims of conscience was recently analyzed by several articles in this journal. The first author of this article (ALB) identified unique but defeasible reasons against honoring positive claims of conscience, such as the greater threat they post to institutional values and institutional resources than negative claims of conscience. However, ALB wrote, when these reasons can be overcome, positive claims of conscience should enjoy the same ethical and legal respect as negative claims of conscience. This article argues that the prescription of birth control by non-Roman Catholic physicians in Roman Catholic institutions is an example of a positive claim of conscience that can overcome concerns of institutional values and resources, and therefore ought to receive the same ethical respect and legal protection as negative claims of conscience. In making this argument, this article also responds to several of the thoughtful comments raised by Alberto Giubilini and Dominic Wilkinson.

With the recent advent of facial transplant (FT) treatment, patients who live with facial disfigurement have a new hope of improved facial aesthetics and quality of life. However, FT has been the subject of intense ethical debate, and there are numerous important ethical considerations surrounding FT that require further in-depth exploration. In the present review, the numerous ethical issues surrounding FT are elucidated, especially the weighty psychosocial impacts of FT, issues surrounding patients' consent, selection and donor matching, and current challenges with postoperative complication management and the facial reconstruction of donors. These are discussed with a key focus on stakeholders' perspectives including recipients, donors' families, and the medical teams involved. This review found that a number of key ethical questions remain unanswered in the field of FT, and further consideration is needed for this novel surgical procedure to have the same evidence-based ethical backing as conventional surgical procedures.

The topic of withholding the Heimlich maneuver as part of a do-not-attempt-to-resuscitate (DNAR) order or an advance directive has not been widely discussed in the clinical ethics literature. This discussion addresses a request by family members to withhold the Heimlich maneuver from a patient in a long-term care facility. A request to forgo the Heimlich maneuver seems to have prima facie categorical similarities to justifications for withholding life-saving treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Further examination reveals significant distinctions. Such distinctions call into question the ethical appropriateness of including the Heimlich maneuver among interventions to be withheld as part of end-of-life care planning, and encourages a broader discussion of an increasingly uncritical deference to autonomy in end-of-life decision making. Most notably, the Heimlich maneuver is the only intervention known to effectively relieve the distressing symptoms of accidental choking. The Heimlich maneuver serves a palliative function and is the standard of care for accidental choking. The Heimlich maneuver should not be conflated with other life-prolonging interventions that may be withheld as part of end-of-life care planning.

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged the dental health profession in an unprecedented manner. Suspension of elective dental care across the United States during the initial phase of the pandemic was necessary to prevent viral transmission. The emergency dental care that was provided had to be tailored to minimize the generation of aerosols. With the suspension of elective care, over time, the proportion of dental emergencies was anticipated to rise. Dentists who care for children have continued to provide emergency dental treatment to this vulnerable population. Treatment decisions for pediatric dental emergencies had to be tailored to principles of public health that best mitigated risk of viral transmission. Decisions needed to balance the benefits of chosen treatment modality for the individual child with the risk of viral transmission to dental professionals and their staff, patients, and community. The paucity of reliable research for dentists to aid in clinical decision making may have left careproviders feeling ethically and morally insecure in shifting from a patient-centered to a community-centered paradigm. We present analysis of four pediatric emergency case scenarios that are representative of those likely to present to a private practice, academic setting, or emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis aims to empower dentists who care for children to implement the American Dental Association's Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct within the context of a global health crisis.

Background: To help inform the development of more accessible, acceptable, and effective ethics consultation (EC) training programs, we conducted an EC training needs assessment, exploring ethics practitioners' opinions on: the relative importance of various EC practitioner competencies; the potential market for EC training (that is, how many individuals would benefit and how much individuals and hospitals would be willing to pay); and the preferred content, format, and characteristics of EC training.

Methods: As part of a multipart study, we surveyed "best informants" who self-identified as the person most actively involved in EC or healthcare ethics in a random sample of 600 U.S. general hospitals, stratified for bed size.

Results: The competency that was ranked most important for a lead or solo ethics consultant was knowledge of ethics, while common sense was ranked least important. The median estimated number of individuals at each hospital who would benefit from EC training was six at the basic level, three at the advanced level, and two for EC management training. In 19.1 percent of hospitals, respondents thought their hospital would not be willing to pay anything for EC training within the next two years. Respondents thought potential trainees would be likely to participate in EC training on multiple different topics. Opinions varied widely on preferred formats. Most respondents thought it very important to be able to interact with instructors and with other trainees, practice EC skills, receive a certificate for completing EC training, and complete EC training during work hours.

Conclusions: These findings provide U.S. population data that may be useful to healthcare educators and bioethics leaders in their efforts to develop EC training programs and products that match trainees' preferences and needs.

After COVID-19 first began to spread in the United States, dentists developed new guidelines that limited whom they could treat under these emergency conditions. Patients who faced greater limits to accessing treatment included children. Using a case of a child who was not able to access treatment, I discuss how careproviders might best seek to maintain their emotional bonding with patients and their loved ones, even if they must turn them down for an intervention. I also address whether and when to give patients and their loved ones warning that access to treatment could be limited, using illness caused by COVID-19 as an example of how careproviders may better anticipate patients' needs at all times. Finally, I discuss careproviders' needs. I suggest that medical professionals' culture should make it as easy as possible for them to acknowledge their feelings of vulnerability, so that they may better determine, in times of disaster, whether they should treat or triage patients. Careproviders who triage may choose to share with patients and loved ones that they also feel pain when they deny patients an intervention.

In pediatric cohort studies, disclosing findings and providing treatment counseling to parents, legal guardians, or other authorized representatives is an ethical imperative. Keratoconus (KC) is a corneal degenerative disease that can progress to severe vision impairment and need for corneal transplantation. This report concerns the disclosure of results to the parents of children who were diagnosed with KC in the Shahroud Schoolchildren Eye Cohort Study and received essential treatment in a timely manner.

In this article, we analyze the ethics of elective growth hormone (GH) therapy in children with idiopathic short stature (ISS). We discuss recent clinical research regarding the efficacy, side-effects, and risks of GH therapy, and argue that GH therapy is ethically unjustifiable for most children with ISS.