Hastings Center Report最新文献

This essay explores what the future may hold for bioethics if it continues its evolution toward a field that embraces systemic, collective-level challenges; has a global scale and focus; emphasizes human flourishing; and seeks to have increased societal impact. As The Hastings Center considers strategic priorities for its research, public engagement, and impact, this essay reflects on where we have been and where we are going. It offers an expansive and inclusive vision for the future of bioethics, in order to invite an open and wide-ranging conversation about the future of our field and the role that The Hastings Center can and should play within it.

This essay summarizes key insights across the essays in the Hastings Center Report's special report “Time to Rebuild: Essays on Trust in Health Care and Science.” These insights concern trust and trustworthiness as distinct concepts, competence as a necessary but not sufficient input to trust, trust as a reciprocal good, trust as an interpersonal as well as structural phenomena, the ethical impermissibility of seeking to win trust without being trustworthy, building and borrowing trust as distinct strategies, and challenges to trustworthiness posed by the contingent nature of science. Together, these insights stand to advance an area of research that we believe has been historically stymied by conceptual confusion and a long-standing insistence on treating trust as a purely instrumental good.

Prior research has documented how important it is to patients to be able to trust their physicians. In this essay, we introduce physician perspectives on the importance of earning patients’ trust. We conducted twelve semistructured interviews in late 2022, eleven with physicians and one with a patient-experience expert. Physicians described earning patients’ trust as crucial for working effectively with patients, with several saying that it was as important as having medical knowledge. Physicians also expressed that feeling a patient trusting them is professionally rewarding and fulfilling. To build trust with patients, physicians reported, they make the medical interaction all about the patient, express their belief in their patients, share their personal experiences, and use other strategies identified in previous literature: communicating effectively, being compassionate, and demonstrating competence. Physicians also reported experiencing challenges in building trust with patients, most often because of patients’ lack of trust in other levels of the health care system and because of having inadequate time to spend with patients. Additionally, Black and Brown physicians described how patients’ bias often blocks trust.

In this essay, we explore consequences of the systemic failure to track and to publicize the prevalence of patient-safety threats in American medicine. Tens of millions of Americans lose trust in medical care every year due to safety shortfalls. Because this loss of trust is long-lasting, the corrosive effects build up over time, yielding a collective maelstrom of mistrust among the American public. Yet no one seems to notice that patient safety is a root cause, because no one is counting. In addition to identifying the origins of this purblindness, we offer an alternative policy approach. This would call for government to transparently track safety threats through the systematic collection and reporting of patients’ experiences. This alternative strategy offers real promise for stemming the erosion of trust that currently accompanies patient-safety shortfalls while staying consistent with Americans’ preferences for a constrained government role with respect to medical care.

Biomedical research recruitment today focuses on including participants representative of global genetic variation—rightfully so. But ethnographic attention to practices of inclusion highlights how this agenda often transforms into “predatory inclusion,” simplistic pushes to get Black and brown people into genomic databases. As anthropologists of medicine, we argue that the question of how to get from diverse data to concrete benefit for people who are marginalized cannot be presumed to work itself out as a byproduct of diverse datasets. To actualize the equitable translation of genomics, practitioners need to place the impacts of ancestral genetic difference in the scope of much more impactful social determinants. For this to happen, multidisciplinary expertise needs to be leveraged, and current, structurally unequal health care systems ultimately need to transform. As modest steps toward this goal, new models for benefit-sharing must be developed and implemented to mitigate existing inequality between data donors and the entities profiting from that data.

Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement.

During times of crisis, institutions tend to focus on maintaining or restoring public trust, as well as on measures to insulate themselves (and their leadership) from potential legal liability. This is because institutions reflexively turn to lawyers, risk managers, crisis consultants, and public relations firms that focus on what they euphemistically call the “optics.” In this essay, I highlight the vital importance of addressing underlying reasons for an institution's loss of public trust—in particular, the loss (or erosion) of its integrity and trustworthiness. Loss of public trust generates one kind of crisis—which I term “opsis.” But there is another kind of institutional crisis that so often remains unrecognized. Just as medical sepsis in the human body is a critical condition that endangers life, the loss of an institution's integrity and trustworthiness constitutes a type of sepsis—ethical sepsis—that poses an existential threat to the institution if unaddressed.