American Journal of Bioethics最新文献

Bioethics has dedicated itself to exploring and defending both reasons for and against certain aspects of clinical care, biomedical research and health policy, including what decisions must be made, who should make them, and how they should be made. In pediatrics, it's widely acknowledged that parents' reasons may matter pragmatically; attending to parents' reasons is important if we want to work with families. Yet the conventional view in pediatric ethics is that parents' reasons are irrelevant to whether a decision is permissible or impermissible according to accepted ethical standards. In this paper, we explore whether parents' reasons matter ethically and, if so, in what way and for whom. First, we clarify what we mean by 'reasons.' Second, we provide an overview of how reasons are typically treated in medical decision-making and pediatric ethics. Third, we analyze a hypothetical pediatric case to illustrate how changing reasons can transform ethical analyses, including by contributing to where and how clinicians and ethicists draw the boundaries intrinsic to common pediatric ethical frameworks. We push back against the conventional view and argue that parents' reasons matter ethically in several ways. We call for further research on the role of parents' reasons in clinical ethics deliberation.

Substituted judgment is widely used at the bedside, but the moral value that underpins its use needs examination. I argue that this value is the value of leading an authentic life. I then argue that an authentic life has multiple axes and that patients (like all human beings) vary widely in how they score on these axes. This entails that the moral weight of the value of authenticity in bedside decision-making also varies widely. And that means that, at the bedside, substituted judgment should not be seen as a moral trump. Put differently, when a surrogate must make a bedside decision, the answer to the "What would the patient choose?" question should not be morally decisive for that decision. The answer to that question should be a part, but only a part, of a more complex decision-making process.

To address the current lack of knowledge about clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs), we surveyed all 36 programs in the U.S. and Canada. The number of CEFPs has grown exponentially over the last 40 years and far exceeds previous estimates. Commonalities among CEFPs include: 88.8% require an advanced degree or rarely accept applicants without one; 91.7% of programs do not restrict applicants to a specific background such as medicine or philosophy; and 88.9% of programs compensate fellows. CEFPs vary widely on numbers of fellows trained in the last 3 years (1-111), numbers of consultations performed by each fellow (0-450), and salaries paid ($0-$95,000). Less than half of programs meet CEFP standards established by ABPD. Nonpaying programs and larger programs tend to have lower admission standards and lower expectations for fellows. We hope these data will help inform CEFP standards that promote quality and consistency without stifling desirable diversity and innovation.

Ethical questions about confidentiality arise when patients refuse to inform relatives who are at risk of a genetic condition. Specifically, healthcare providers may struggle with the permissibility of breaching confidentiality to warn patients' at-risk relatives. In exploring this issue, several authors have converged around the idea that genetic cases differ from non-genetic cases (e.g., involving a threat of violence or the spread of an infectious disease) along two related dimensions: (1) In genetic cases, the risk of harm is already present in an at-risk third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, it is not; and (2) In genetic cases, the patient does not create a risk of harm to a third party, whereas in non-genetic cases, the patient does. I argue that these distinctions do not exclusively differentiate genetic from non-genetic cases and should not bear on the permissibility of breaching confidentiality. Instead, such determinations should be based on other considerations.