Bioethics最新文献

After briefly reviewing the historical development and ethical regulation of resuscitative technologies, this study probes why clinicians engage in the morally problematic practice of show and slow coding and why hospitals tolerate it? Studies conducted in 1995 and 2020 indicate that conscientious clinicians engage in these practices to protect their patients from abusive or futile resuscitation. And hospitals' clinical cultures tolerate these practices to protect conscientious clinicians from censure, dismissal, delicensing, or legal prosecution for withholding or withdrawing abusive or futile resuscitative technologies without prior patient or surrogate consent. Show and slow coding evolved in American clinical cultures in the second half of the 20th century when closed-chest cardiac massage, defibrillators, ventilators, and other resuscitative technologies raised seemingly novel ethical questions. To address these questions, bioethics commissions, healthcare societies, lawmakers, and a Roman Catholic Pope developed ethics standards requiring clinicians to obtain patient or surrogate consent before withholding or withdrawing resuscitative technologies. They thus conferred on patients an implicit right of resuscitation even if it was abusive and/or futile. Conscientious clinicians circumvented this implicit right by show and slow coding to protect patients from abusive resuscitation. Recognizing clinicians' benign intent, hospitals' clinical cultures tolerate show and slow coding as acts of conscience, akin to civil disobedience. Thus, rescinding ethics standards and laws requiring prior patient/surrogate consent for non-resuscitation or for cessation of resuscitative technologies decisions should end show/slow coding. Such a reform should also recognize clinicians' right of conscientious refusal to perform CPR.

It is not unusual for patients or families to disagree with healthcare professionals (HCPs) over best treatment options. Conversation typically results and mutually agreeable choices are implemented. Rarely, but increasingly, patients or families will request, even demand, interventions the treating team believes will be ineffective (they will not achieve the intended goal) or inappropriate (the medical or moral harms clearly outweigh any potential benefits). One's duty as an HCP requires one to refuse such interventions, but resulting patient or family conflict makes such refusals challenging, even traumatic, and HCPs often acquiesce. Some states have legal options that protect HCPs and their respective institutions when they make such unilateral choices, but the process is complex, time-consuming, and emotionally fraught. In this paper, We describe one especially difficult case, using it as a paradigmatic example of when, and why, a slow code is sometimes, if rarely, justified. We also discuss strategies HCPs can use to reduce the need for this, admittedly problematic, solution.

Human activity is now having a defining influence on global systems. The Anthropocene epoch requires revisiting our ethical presuppositions to understand our relationship to the earth's life support systems. The Land Ethic of Aldo Leopold proposes an ethic that is diachronic, holistic, and biocentric, in contrast to the synchronic, individualist, and anthropocentric axioms of mainstream bioethics. I argue that these features of the Land Ethic make it more suitable to engage with the ethics of healthcare resource allocation in the Anthropocene; that understanding sustainability in a Land Ethical fashion requires that we view it as placing a side-constraint on all permissible healthcare resource use such that this use remains within planetary boundaries; and outline how this might re-shape debates around healthcare resource allocation.

The COVID-19 pandemic created healthcare backlogs of routine primary and preventive care, elective procedures, dental care, and mental healthcare appointments across the world. So far, governments are responding by enacting pandemic recovery policies that expand their healthcare sector activity, without much, if any, consideration of its effects on the environmental crisis that is (among other things) worsening human health and health equity. This paper argues that, as a matter of health and social justice, governments have an ethical responsibility to equitably reduce the backlog with minimal environmental damage. To do so, a first key action is to give priority to policy options that minimise negative human impacts on the environment. Yet these policies alone will not be sufficient to address the backlog, particularly in relation to elective procedures. The paper therefore contends that a second key action for governments is to enact the policy options that are best able to equitably reduce the remainder of the backlog, while accelerating the transition to sustainable health care in ways that are best able to reduce the specific environmental costs of those policy options. It concludes by considering whether limits apply to governments' ethical responsibilities that ultimately mean accelerating the transition to sustainable health care is not required when addressing the backlog.