Journal of Clinical Ethics最新文献

The coronavirus-19 (COVD-19) pandemic has resulted in strains on critical care resources throughout the world. Existing and newly developed guidelines for the allocation of scarce resources, including ventilators, frequently use the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for prognostic determination. This article will outline how SOFA scores were neither designed nor tested for this purpose and why guidelines based upon SOFA score groupings do not conform to ethical principles and community values.

In a reply to Ross, I argue that, as head injuries often lack external indicators, it is imperative that youth-patient-athletes themselves be convinced to report these injuries. Parents, although part of the pediatric triad, will be no help if the adolescent chooses to conceal the information from them as well. Further, I explain why a more deliberate focus on the role of parents in this relationship does not alter my support of the compromising interpretive model as a harm reduction strategy.

A psychiatric advance directive (PAD) is a communication tool that promotes patients' autonomy and gives capacitated adults who live with serious mental illnesses the ability to record their preferences for care and designate a proxy decision maker before a healthcare crisis. Despite a high degree of interest by patients and previous studies that recommend that clinicians facilitate the completion of PADs, the rate of implementation of PAD remains low. Research indicates that many clinicians lack the necessary experience to facilitate the completion of PADs and to use them, and, as a consequence, do not effectively engage patients about PADs. This study developed practical recommendations for clinicians to improve their ability to communicate and facilitate PADs. We (1) thematically analyzed definitions of PADs published in 118 articles across disciplines, and (2) presented our recommendations for enhanced communication in clinical practice that emphasizes patient-centeredness, usefulness, and clarity, aligned with evidence-based practices that put patients' autonomy and understanding first. While there is no one-size-fits-all script to engage patients in complex conversations, our recommended strategies include an emphasis on patients' autonomy, the adaptation of word choices, the use of metaphor not simile, and checking for patients' understanding as effective methods of clinical communication.

Moral distress, if left unaddressed, leads to a number of harmful emotions and behaviors that take a toll on the personal and professional well-being of healthcare workers. In this article, a clinical case is used to illustrate a moral distress debriefing framework that can be utilized by clinical ethicists and healthcare professionals with the appropriate skill set. The first part of the framework is preparatory; it includes guidance on how to identify the needs of healthcare providers, set goals for a debriefing session, gather relevant information, and plan the logistics of the meeting. The second part of the framework is implemental; it outlines an eight-step method to conduct the session from beginning to end. It describes how to constructively reflect on the experience, explore emotional responses, share coping strategies, and identify take-aways for future positive outcomes. This framework can be used to empower healthcare team members to deal with moral distress and be better equipped to handle challenging situations.

The number of children with chronic critical illness (CCI) is a growing population in the United States. A defining characteristic of this population is a prolonged hospital stay. Our study assessed the proportion of pediatric patients with chronic critical illness in U.S. hospitals at a specific point in time, and identified a subset of children whose hospital stay lasted for months to years. The potential harms of a prolonged hospitalization for children with CCI, which include over treatment, infection, disruption of family life, and the intensive utilization of resources-combined with the moral distress experienced by the clinicians who care for the children, suggest the need for ethical analysis of this growing issue to identify actions that could be taken at the clinical and health systems levels to reduce the harms associated with prolonged hospital stay. In this article we present three real cases from our study that involved a very long hospital stay. We applied a framework developed by Mackenzie, Rogers, and Dodds to analyze inherent, situational, and pathogenic vulnerabilities to examine the ways that interventions intended to remedy one source of harm for the children in our cohort inadvertently created other harms. We examined the complex ways that children with protracted hospitalization are vulnerable to the choices made by their family and clinicians, as well as by healthcare systems and communities. Finally, we used this analysis to summarize actions and ethical responses to this growing patient population. Such an understanding is essential to make clinical and ethical decisions that arise for children who are at risk for a very long stay in the hospital.

Micro decisions, made by individuals, during a health crisis in which healthcare resources are particularly in short supply, should not be based only on the age of the patients. Ameliorate  care is only appreciated  when the patient has a limited time to live, whatever their age. Macro decisions concern public policy. We must decide now who will pay for the vaccines, who will get them before others, whether minorities should be granted priority, and whether the United States should join a global distribution system.

Shared decision making (SDM) is the state of the art for clinicians' communication with patients and surrogate decision makers. SDM involves give and take, in which all parties interact to maximize the autonomy of patients. In this article I summarize the core steps of SDM and explore ways to use it to benefit patients to the greatest extent. I review three articles included in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics that highlight additional approaches we can use to help patients and parents to see what may be in their own or their child's best interest. I describe how these approaches can be used in most other medical fields. I explore ways to share information with patients that are outside the usual scope of SDM. Finally, I discuss how we might look, together with patients, at what all parties are feeling before we begin the process of SDM.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused shortages of life-sustaining medical resources, and future waves of the virus may cause further scarcity. The Yale New Haven Health System developed a triage protocol to allocate scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the primary goal of saving the most lives possible, and a secondary goal of making triage assessments and decisions consistent, transparent, and fair. We outline the process of developing the triage protocol, summarize the protocol itself, and discuss the major ethical challenges encountered, along with our answers to these challenges. These challenges include (1) the role of age and chronic comorbidities; (2) evaluating children and pregnant patients; (3) racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health; (4) prioritization of healthcare workers; and (5) balancing clinical judgment versus protocolized assessments. We conclude with a review of the limitations of our protocol and the lessons learned. We hope that a robust public discussion of such protocols and the ethical challenges that they raise will result in the fairest possible processes, less need for triage, and more lives saved during future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar public health emergencies.

In this account, the author shares her long-standing personal and professional relationship with her mentor, Albert R. Jonsen, PhD, a prominent figure in the history of bioethics.

Participation in sports such as football puts youth-athletes at high risk of injury. Helmets cannot protect players from the possibility of traumatic brain injury, and repeated concussive injuries can lead to chronic traumatic encephalopathy later in life. In light of such facts, the morally appropriate role of physicians who treat patient-athletes comes into question. I argue that pediatricians ought to be committed to a high level of shared decision making, whereby their goal, rather than being to provide the medically best advice (which, let's be honest, would be to not play football at all), would be to provide the medically best advice in light of patients' honestly professed plans and goals. If patient-athletes see their doctor as an ally, who wants them on the field as much as they want to be there, they will be more likely to trust their pediatrician to help in the realization of those goals, even if they report an injury. While this approach could feel like a medical betrayal, in that the physician could feel complicit in helping a patient to continue engaging in high-risk behavior, I argue that medical outcomes will be better than if patient-athletes see physicians as an obstruction to their athletic goals.