BMC Medical Ethics最新文献

Background: Clinical Ethics Consultations (CECs) are used by healthcare systems to offer healthcare practitioners a structured level of support to approach ethical questions. The objective of this study was to detail the elements of surveyed CECs and offer guidance in the approach to future ethics consultations at a regional healthcare system.

Methods: This cohort study has a qualitative and quantitative retrospective approach, surveying ethics consultations through the dates of 4/27/22 to 4/26/24. A documentary sheet was created, and information was entered via online data-gathering forms. The cases are from a range of specialties within a regional healthcare system servicing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota.

Results: 103 CECs were performed within the study period across the regional healthcare system. Consultations were identified through retrospective review of the internal CEC database, and patient information was collected through the medical record. Decision-making was often performed by a substitute decision-maker (N = 54), occurring in 70.1% of cases with known decision makers. CECs were documented in an ethics-specific note in the patient medical record in 37 of 82 (45.1%) documented patient cases. It was common for physicians to mention the ethics consultation in their patient notes, occuring in 51 of 82 (62.2%) of documented patient cases. Age was recorded in 92.0% (N = 91) of unique patient cases; the median age was 62 years. Ethical questions concerning end-of-life care were the most common cause for consultation (N = 35, 34%), and CECs were most commonly requested in general medicine or hospitalist departments (N = 38, 45.2%). Most consultations resulted in resolution at time of initial consultation with the ethics call team.

Conclusions: Recommendations for increased frequency and timing of policy review are given based on the results of the data presented. Using interpretation of the CECs in this study, we offer recommendations towards the use and documentation of ethics consultations in the era of open notes, open the door towards areas of future research, and ultimately promote use of CECs for more favorable patient outcomes.

This paper explores public perceptions of the Hippocratic Oath (Physician's Oath) in the U.K. Results of a questionnaire administered online to 106 adults indicated that the majority were of the opinion that their primary and secondary health care doctors had taken the Oath (88% and 86% respectively). A majority thought that nurses, paramedics, psychotherapists and graduate scientists and researchers should also take some form of professional oath. Elements of the Oath which were deemed most important included that it is a sworn oath, that doctors should not harm patients, act in the best interests of patients, abide by the principles of autonomy and informed consent and maintain patient confidentiality. A significant proportion - about 20% - of the UK public felt that doctors had forgotten their Hippocratic Oath during COVID-19 lockdowns and associated vaccination programme, suggesting that recent history may have damaged the public faith in the medical profession.

Background: There is limited information on the ethical issues encountered in living donor organ transplants performed on refugees and asylum seekers. This study investigates the ethical challenges faced by Syrian refugees under temporary protection in Türkiye who engage in living donor organ transplants.

Methods: From April to July 2022 in Istanbul, the research employed a qualitative design involving semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 27 participants, including organ donors and recipients. The analysis utilized a thematic analytic method.

Results: The findings elucidate two principal themes related to ethical concerns: justice and autonomy. Under the justice theme, several sub-themes emerged, highlighting the multifaceted challenges Syrian refugees face in accessing healthcare services. These include migration and language barriers, significantly impeding their ability to understand medical procedures and rights. Financial difficulties and restricted movement within the country further complicate their access to necessary healthcare. Despite these hurdles, refugees benefit from free access to organ transplantation services and medications, a policy underscoring Türkiye's commitment to healthcare equity for protected populations. The autonomy theme addresses the ethical handling of donor consent and motivation. The results indicate that Syrian refugees undergo a transplantation process free from coercion, with rigorous oversight by organ transplant ethics committees ensuring the prevention of donor abuse. However, despite these protective measures, challenges persist in the informed consent process, primarily due to language barriers that hinder effective communication between healthcare providers and patients. While the efforts of healthcare professionals to assist are recognized as alleviating some difficulties, the broader issues of access to comprehensive health services remain a significant concern. These barriers suggest a need for enhanced linguistic and financial support to improve healthcare accessibility for refugees.

Conclusions: This study posits that the healthcare framework provided by Türkiye to Syrians under temporary protection can serve as a model for international human rights and social justice. However, it also emphasizes the importance of addressing the persistent obstacles that limit healthcare access for asylum seekers. Recommendations for policy enhancements focus on improving language services, increasing financial support, and expanding the accessibility of comprehensive health services to ensure equitable health outcomes for refugees.

Background: The differences in clinical bioethics between the Mediterranean and Latin American cultures have not been analyzed. The objective of the study is to compare the ethical conflicts that internists in Spain, Mexico and Argentina have.

Methods: Cross-sectional observational study through a survey directed at internists from Spain, Argentina and Mexico. The survey was administered to affiliated members of the National Societies of Internal Medicine across three countries via an online platform.

Results: 762 internists participated, 261 from Spain, 154 from Argentina and 347 from Mexico. The main ethical conflicts that internists in Spain, Argentina and Mexico have are related (in order) to the end of life, to the clinical relationship and to the patient's autonomy. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is the most frequent conflict in Spain and Argentina and the second in Mexico.

Conclusions: Internists from Spain and Argentina identify very similar ethical conflicts. Furthermore, they consider them more frequent and difficult than in Mexico. In Argentina they are less satisfied with the way they are resolved. To explain these differences, socio-cultural factors are postulated, among others: paternalism, individualism, masculinity, organization of the health system, formal training in bioethics and assessment of death.

Background: The swift advancement of intensive care medicine, coupled with technological possibilities, has prompted numerous ethical inquiries regarding decision-making processes concerning the withholding or withdrawal of treatment due to medical futility. This study seeks to delineate the decision-making approaches employed by intensive care physicians in Türkiye when faced with medical futility at the end of life, along with an ethical evaluation of these practices.

Methods: Grounded theory, a qualitative analysis method was employed, conducting semi-structured, in-depth interviews with eleven intensive care physicians in Türkiye. The subsequent text analysis was carried out using MAXQDA software.

Results: Participants assert that the decisions made by Turkish physicians determine whether treatment is futile, rely on medical consensus, and lack a standardized decision-making process. The decisions are influenced by legal and social pressures, resource constraints, and occasional conflicts of interest. The significance of professional hierarchy is notable, with limited consideration given to the opinions of nurses and other staff. The unstructured medical consensus processes are shaped by normative concepts such as benefit, age, justice, and conscience. Furthermore, it was observed that the conscientious opinions of physicians carry more weight than adherence to ethical principles and guidelines.

Conclusion: To create optimal conditions for doctors to make ethically justifiable decisions, the dynamics within the treatment team should be improved, emphasizing the minimization of hierarchy, and ensuring the active participation of all team members in the decision-making process. Additionally, efforts should be directed toward narrowing the gap between the conscience of the individual doctor and established ethical principles. A potential solution lies in the nationwide implementation of clinical ethics committees and the establishing of clinical ethics guidelines, aiming to address, and overcome the identified challenges.

Background: Financial relationships between clinical guideline authors and pharmaceutical companies introduce conflicts of interest (COI), potentially biasing guideline recommendations. Thus, proper management of COI is paramount for clinical guideline authors. Nevertheless, little is known about COI among neurology clinical guideline authors. This study aimed to evaluate the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and authors of Clinical Practice Guideline for Headache Disorders (CPGHD) in Japan.

Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 2016-2020 personal payments data disclosed by all pharmaceutical companies affiliated with the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. We examined amounts and fraction of personal payments to all 57 CPGHD authors and all neurologists board-certified by the Japanese Society of Neurology. Payment data was descriptively analyzed at individual author level.

Results: Among 57 CPGHD authors, 56 (98.3%) received personal payments totaling $2.7 million from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2020. Median five-year payments were $89,955 for CPGHD authors, while $521 for board-certified neurologists. The CPGHD chairperson and vice chairperson received substantial payments during the guideline development period. Nevertheless, because of less rigorous and transparent COI policy compared to international standard policies, only 10 authors disclosed their financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies in the guideline.

Conclusions: More than 98% of CPGHD authors received much higher personal payments from pharmaceutical companies than those to board-certified neurologists during the guideline development period in Japan.

Background: Advance Care Planning via Group Visits (ACP-GV) is a patient-centered intervention facilitated by a clinician using a group modality to promote healthcare decision-making among veterans. Participants in the group document a "Next Step" to use in planning for their future care needs. The next step may include documentation of preferences in an advance directive, discussing plans with family, or anything else to fulfill their ACP needs. This evaluation seeks to determine whether there are identifiable subgroups of group participants with differing needs prior to delivery of the ACP-GV program and, if so, to use information about the subgroups to enhance the program offered to veterans in United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare settings.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of national data from a quality improvement evaluation. Patient- and provider-level data from administrative healthcare records for VA users in all 50 states, territories, and the District of Columbia provides data on veterans attending ACP-GV during federal fiscal years 2018-2022 (N = 26,857). Latent class analysis seeks to identify the various subgroups of veterans based on their level of ACP self-efficacy before attending ACP-GV and any demographic differences across the resulting subgroups of veterans attending ACP-GV. ACP self-efficacy is derived from seven items obtained from a participant worksheet used during the group.

Results: Analysis revealed two distinct groups of veterans, distinguishable by their pre-ACP-GV levels of one aspect of ACP self-efficacy: prior knowledge of ACP. Veterans with higher prior knowledge of ACP are associated with an identified next step focused on checking their current AD status and updating it, and veterans with lower ACP prior knowledge are associated with identifying a next step to discuss ACP more fully with family. Differences in age, sex, race, ethnicity, and marital status exist across subgroups of veterans.

Conclusion: Greater attention must be paid to ACP and veterans' prior knowledge of ACP to consistently encourage annual review and status updates.

Background: The Dutch Euthanasia law permits euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia lacking decisional capacity based on advance euthanasia directives. Nevertheless, physicians encounter difficulties assessing the criteria for due care in such cases. This study explores the perspectives of legal experts on the fulfillment of these criteria and the potential for additional legal guidance to support physicians' decision-making processes.

Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with legal experts. Two focus group sessions were conducted. The data analysis was conducted iteratively, with the data being interpreted using thematic content analysis and the framework method.

Results: Participants emphasize the importance of considering the patient's current wishes and informing them about the limitations of advance euthanasia directives. While representatives and healthcare professionals can assist in interpreting wishes, the final decision regarding euthanasia rests with the physician. The participants also discuss the challenges posed by pre-recorded wishes due to changing preferences. Furthermore, they present different views on the value of life wishes of patients with advanced dementia. While some participants prioritize life wishes over advance euthanasia directives, others question whether such expressions still reflect their will. Participants find it essential to assess unbearable suffering in the context of the current situation. Participants acknowledge the necessity to interpret advance euthanasia directives but also current expressions and they entrust this interpretation to physicians, viewing them as the primary authority, despite consulting multiple sources.

Conclusions: The Dutch Euthanasia law's due care criteria are open norms -which are open in substance and require further elaboration, mostly determined on a case-by-case basis to the field standards of the profession-, placing the responsibility on physicians to interpret advance euthanasia directives and patient expressions. Despite potential support from various sources of information, there is limited additional legal guidance available to assist physicians in making decisions.

Objective: The intensive care unit, with its structural complexity and the exposure of critically ill patients to various disparities, presents a significant setting for health disparities. This critical ethnographic study sought to uncover cultural knowledge and ethical practices for reducing health disparities in providing care services within the intensive care unit. The focus was on understanding how ethical considerations and cultural competence can address and mitigate these disparities effectively.

Methods: This critical ethnographic study was conducted in 2022-2023 at intensive care units in western Iran. Three interrelated phases were used to collect and analyze the data. More than 300 h of observation were done during the first phase. A horizon analysis was carried out in the next phase. To further enhance the dataset, 18 informants participated in semi-structured interviews and informal conversations. Following that, the analysis procedure was conducted to identify a culture of health disparities and factors that reduce it, as it had been in the prior stage. Trustworthiness data collection methods were implemented to ensure the validity and reliability of the study.

Findings: Two key themes emerged from the study: (A) Improved cultural competence, which encompassed empathy towards patients and their families, effective communication, prioritization of continuous learning, appropriate knowledge and awareness, sensitivity to cultural and religious beliefs, staff attitude and personality, and the delivery of customized care tailored to each patient's needs. (B) Supporting role and compensating for disparities involved recommendations for upholding ethical standards, compensatory actions, maintaining professional behavior despite external factors, addressing gaps and deficiencies, and actively defending and supporting patients.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that staff with high cultural competence can ethically mitigate health disparities through their supportive roles. Managers and health policymakers should create barriers to health disparity by improving staff cultural competence and knowledge about health disparities.

Institutions are increasingly employing algorithms to provide performance feedback to individuals by tracking productivity, conducting performance appraisals, and developing improvement plans, compared to traditional human managers. However, this shift has provoked considerable debate over the effectiveness and fairness of algorithmic feedback. This study investigates the effects of negative performance feedback (NPF) on the attitudes, cognition and behavior of medical researchers, comparing NPF from algorithms versus humans. Two scenario-based experimental studies were conducted with a total sample of 660 medical researchers (algorithm group: N1 = 411; human group: N2 = 249). Study 1 analyzes the differences in scientific misconduct, moral disengagement, and algorithmic attitudes between the two sources of NPF. The findings reveal that NPF from algorithms shows higher levels of moral disengagement, scientific misconduct, and negative attitudes towards algorithms compared to NPF from humans. Study 2, grounded in trait activation theory, investigates how NPF from algorithms triggers individual's egoism and algorithm aversion, potentially leading to moral disengagement and scientific misconduct. Results indicate that algorithm aversion triggers individuals' egoism, and their interaction enhances moral disengagement, which in turn leads to increased scientific misconduct among researchers. This relationship is also moderated by algorithmic transparency. The study concludes that while algorithms can streamline performance evaluations, they pose significant risks to scientific misconduct of researchers if not properly designed. These findings extend our understanding of NPF by highlighting the emotional and cognitive challenges algorithms face in decision-making processes, while also underscoring the importance of balancing technological efficiency with moral considerations to promote a healthy research environment. Moreover, managerial implications include integrating human oversight in algorithmic NPF processes and enhancing transparency and fairness to mitigate negative impacts on medical researchers' attitudes and behaviors.