Hec Forum最新文献

Should we implement biomedical interventions like psychopharmaceuticals or brain stimulation that aim to improve morality in society? Since 2008, moral bioenhancement (MBE) has received considerable attention in bioethics, generating wide scholarly disagreement. However, reviews on the subject are few and either outdated or not structured in method. This paper addresses this gap by providing a scoping review of the last 15 years of debate on MBE (from 2008 to 2022). To enhance clarity, we map the debate into three key areas: the conceptual foundations of MBE (foundational questions), the practical feasibility of MBE (practical questions), and the normative legitimacy of MBE (normative questions). Beyond identifying specific research gaps within these domains, our analysis reveals a general lack of empirical evidence either supporting or opposing MBE, as well as a shift in the literature from a universal interpretation of MBE to a more pragmatic one, targeting specific groups.

Conflicts involving end-of-life care between healthcare providers (HCPs) and surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) have received sustained attention for more than a quarter of a century, with early studies demonstrating a frequency of HCP-SDM conflict in ICUs ranging from 32-78% of all admissions (Abbott et al. 2001; Breen et al. 2001; Studdert et al. 2003; Azoulay et al. 2009). More recent studies not only acknowledge the persistence of clinical conflict in end-of-life care (Leland et al. 2017), but they have begun to focus on the ways in which these conflicts escalate to verbal or physical violence in the ICU (Slack et al. 2023; Bass et al. 2024; Berger et al. 2024; Sjöberg et al. 2024). I will argue that part of the explanation for the persistence-and even escalation-of ICU disputes is the incommensurable value systems held by many conflicting HCPs and SDMs. I will argue that a common value system among HCPs can be understood as a "Best Interest Values" (BIV) hierarchy, which I will argue is irreconcilable with the set of "Life-Continuation Values" (LCV) held by a sizable minority of families in the United States. I argue this values-conflict undergirds many ICU disputes. If I am correct that an incommensurable value system underlies many ICU conflicts, then it is not just ineffectual for HCPs to impose their BIV system on LCV families, but also wrong given the American commitment to values pluralism. I conclude that the way to navigate continuous ICU surrogate wars is for BIV-focused healthcare institutions to engage more constructively with LCV stakeholders.

In 2021, Canada revised its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law, removing the "reasonably foreseeable death" requirement. Opponents of MAID voiced concerns about a "slippery slope" leading to broader access, with some arguing the line has already been crossed. I examine the arguments against expanded eligibility, particularly those presented by Tom Koch (2023). Koch's reasoning, I submit, is flawed, lacking nuance in its understanding of the slippery slope and relying on a problematic argument about healthcare access.

Florida is currently collecting data on the "costs of uncompensated care for aliens who are not lawfully present in the U.S." (Statutes of Florida, 2023). The Florida data collection law, enacted in 2023, is part of aggressive anti-immigrant legislation. Hospitals accepting Medicaid must inquire about patients' immigration status and submit de-identified reports. In August 2024, the Governor of Texas signed an Executive Order comparable to the Florida statute. Although presented as a data-collection measure, the legal requirements have far-reaching consequences. The potential adverse impacts on immigrants' health pose bioethical concerns. Immigration-related inquiries create barriers to healthcare access and advance care planning, exacerbating healthcare disparities and presenting ethical concerns. This article examines the effects on immigrants and the resulting ethical challenges, including respect for persons, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The article proposes recommendations for mitigating these challenges, including community outreach, patient education, policy development, in-service education, and advocacy. While the legal requirements apply specifically to Florida and Texas, the ethical issues have nationwide relevance.

Organizational ethics-defined as the alignment of an institution's practices with its mission, vision, and values-is a growing field in health care not well characterized in empirical literature. To capture the scope and context of organizational ethics work in United States healthcare institutions, we conducted a nationwide convenience survey of ethicists regarding the scope of organizational ethics work, common challenges faced, and the organizational context in which this work is done. In this article, we report substantial variability in the structure of organizational ethics programs and the settings in which it is conducted. Notable findings included disagreement about the activities that comprise organizational ethics and a lack of common metrics used to assess organizational ethics activities. A frequently cited barrier to full engagement in these activities was poor institution-wide understanding about the role and function of organizational ethics resources. These data suggest a tension in the trajectory of organizational ethics' professionalization: while some variability is appropriate to the field's relative youth, inadequate attention to definitions of organizational ethics practice and metrics for success can impede discussions about appropriate institutional support, leadership context, and training for practitioners.

Caring for unrepresented patients encompasses legal, ethical, and moral challenges regarding decision-making, consent, the patient's values, wishes, best interest, and the healthcare team's professional integrity and autonomy. In this article, I consider the impact of the aging population and the effects of the social determinants of health and suggest that without preventive intervention, the number of unrepresented patients will continue to increase. The health, social, and legal risk factors for becoming unrepresented require a multidisciplinary response. Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) bring healthcare and legal professionals together to address risk factors and health-harming legal needs. The article discusses the role of MLPs in identifying at-risk individuals, providing preventive interventions, and providing support. I make recommendations and conclude that proactive MLPs offer a sustainable approach to the ethical challenges in caring for unrepresented patients by providing interventions to prevent individuals from becoming unrepresented.

The evaluation of the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes project (Euro-MCD) has resulted in a revised evaluation instrument, knowledge about the content of MCD (moral case deliberation), and the perspectives of those involved. In this paper, we report on a perspective that has been overlooked, the facilitators'. We aim to describe facilitators' perceptions of high-quality moral case deliberation and their Euro-MCD sessions. The research took place in Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands using a survey combined with interviews with 41 facilitators. Facilitators' perceived that attaining a high-quality MCD implies fostering a safe and respectful atmosphere, creating a wondering mode, being an attentive authority, developing moral reflective skills, reaching a common understanding, and ensuring organisational prerequisites for the MCD sessions. Our central conclusion is that efforts at three levels are required to attain a high-quality MCD: trained and virtuous facilitator; committed, respectful participants; and organizational space. Furthermore, managers have a responsibility to prepare MCD participants for what it means to take part in MCD.

Patients with mental illness, and depression in particular, present clinicians and surrogate decision-makers with complex ethical dilemmas when they refuse life-sustaining non-psychiatric treatment. When treatment rejection is at variance with the beliefs and preferences that could be expected based on their premorbid or "authentic" self, their capacity to make these decisions may be called into question. If capacity cannot be demonstrated, medical decisions fall to surrogates who are usually advised to decide based on a substituted judgment standard or, when that is not possible, best interest. We propose that in cases where the patient meets the widely accepted cognitive criteria for capacity but is making decisions that appear inauthentic, the surrogate may best uphold patient autonomy by following a "restorative representation" model. We see restorative representation as a subset of substituted judgement in which the decision-maker retains responsibility for deciding as the patient would have, but discerns the decision their "truest self" would make, rather than inferring their current wishes, which are directly influenced by illness. Here we present a case in which the patient's treatment refusal and previously undiagnosed depression led to difficulty determining the patient's authentic wishes and placed a distressing burden on the surrogate decision-maker. We use this case to examine how clinicians and ethicists might better advise surrogates who find themselves making these clinically and emotionally challenging decisions.

"Follow the science" was commonly repeated during debates on COVID-19-related policy. The phrase "follow the science" raises questions that are central to our theories of knowledge and the application of scientific knowledge to maximize the wellbeing of our society. The purpose of this study was to (1) perform a scoping review of literature discussing "follow the science" and COVID-19, and (2) consider "follow the science" in the context of pediatric health. A comprehensive search of 14 databases was performed on May 23, 2023. Articles were included if they used terms such as "follow the science", "follow the scientists", "listen to science" or "listen to scientists", and discussed COVID-19. There were 24 articles included in the final review. Existing literature on "follow the science" (1) differentiates between scientific knowledge and policy decisions; (2) emphasizes the importance of social sciences in policy making; (3) calls for more transparency in the knowledge synthesis and policy generating process; and (4) finds that scientific advisors see their role as advising on science rather than policy decision making. There was no definitional, epistemological, or philosophical intellectual defense of "follow the science" in the peer reviewed literature. Policy requires (1) reliable data and (2) agreement on what to do considering those empirical facts by appealing to values, ethics, morality, and law. A review of school shutdowns is used as an example of the inadequacy of "follow the science" as a guiding principle for public policy.

The concept ethics defines health care ethics as a professional practice. Yet the meaning of "ethics" is often unclear in the theory and practice of clinical ethics. Clarity on this matter is crucial for understanding the nature of clinical ethics and for debates about the professional identity and proper role of ethicists, the sort of training and skills they should possess, and whether they have ethics expertise. This article examines two different ways the ethics of clinical ethics can be understood: Real Ethics, which consists of objective moral norms grounded in moral truth; and Conventional Ethics, which consists of conventional norms grounded in bioethical consensus. Drawing on the bioethics literature and features of professional practice, it shows that Conventional Ethics is the dominant paradigm. Then it presents a critique of Conventional Ethics, arguing that it cannot avoid the challenge of moral pluralism, it fails to address vitally important moral questions, and it is incapable of providing an essential service to the people ethicists aim to help. It ends with suggestions about how the practice of clinical ethics might overcome these problems.