Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine最新文献

Background: Research involves the systematic collection and analysis of data to enhance understanding of a particular phenomenon. Participation in medical research is crucial for advancing healthcare practices. However, there has been limited focus on understanding the factors that motivate medical students to engage in research. Additionally, in the era of e-learning, the easy accessibility of online resources has contributed to a widespread 'copy-paste culture' among digital-native students, which is recognized in academia as plagiarism. Existing studies suggest that a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence of plagiarism is students' limited understanding of this act. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students' attitudes toward research and plagiarism, and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Attitudes Toward Research (ATR) and Attitudes Toward Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaires.

Methods: This was a multicenter study conducted among medical undergraduate and postgraduate students attending the three medical universities who were involved in research. Students' attitudes toward research and plagiarism were assessed using the ATR and ATP questionnaires. The research instruments underwent translation and cultural adaptation in accordance with internationally accepted methodology. The psychometric properties of the ATR and ATP, including validity and reliability, were assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the model's fit to the data.

Results: The ATR and ATP questionnaires were completed by 793 medical students who were involved in research (647 undergraduates and 146 PhD students). Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.917 and 0.822 indicated excellent and good scale reliability for the ATR and ATP questionnaires, respectively. The five-and three- factor structures of ATR and ATP have been validated with maximum likelihood confirmatory analysis, and the results demonstrated an adequate level of model fit (TLI = 0.930, CFI = 0.942 and TLI = 0.924, CFI = 0.943, respectively). Medical students showed a high degree of positive attitudes toward research and favorable scores across all three domains of attitudes toward plagiarism. In multivariate regression models, age was found to be positively associated with favorable attitudes of research usefulness, positive attitudes, relevance to life subscales and total ATR scale (p < 0.001), while PhD study level was related to research anxiety (p < 0.001) and favorable attitudes across all three ATP domains (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Medical students who were involved in research showed a high degree of favorable attitudes toward research and plagiarism. Adjusting medical school curricula to include research courses would broaden the students' interest in scientific research and maximize their impact on the full preservation of research ethics and integrity.

This paper draws on qualitative research using focus groups involving 38 general practitioners (GPs). It explores their attitudes and feelings about (over-)medicalisation. Our main findings were that GPs had a complex representation of (over-)medicalisation, composed of many professional, social, technological, economic and relational issues. This representation led GPs to feel uncomfortable. They felt pressure from all sides, which led them to question their social roles and responsibilities. We identified four main GP-driven proposals to deal with (over-)medicalisation: (1) focusing on the communication in doctor-patient relationships; (2) grounding practices in evidence-based medicine; (3) relying on clinical skills, experience and intuition; and (4) promoting training, leadership bodies and social movements. Drawing on these proposals, we identify and discuss five paradigms that underpin GPs' attitudes toward (over-)medicalisation: underlying social factors, preventing medicalisation, managing uncertainties, sharing medical decision-making and thinking about care as a rationale. We suggest that these paradigms constitute a defensive posture against GPs' uncomfortable feelings. All five defensive paradigms were identified in our focus groups, echoing contemporary political debates on public health. This non-exhaustive framework forms the outline of what we call ordinary defensive medicine. GPs' uncomfortable feelings are the origin of their defensive solutions and the manifestation of their vulnerability. This professional vulnerability can be shared with the patient's vulnerability. In our view, this creates an opportunity to rediscover patient-doctor relationships and examine patients' and doctors' vulnerabilities together."There are many cases in which-though the signs of a confusion of tongues between the patient and his doctor are painfully present-there is apparently no open controversy. Some of these cases demonstrate the working of two other, often interlinked, factors. One is the patient's increasing anxiety and despair, resulting in more and more fervently clamouring demands for help. Often the doctor's response is guilt feelings and despair that his most conscientious, most carefully devised examinations do not seem to throw real light on the patient's "illness", that his most erudite, most modern, most circumspect therapy does not bring real relief." (Balint M. The Doctor, His Patient and the Illness. New York: International Universities; 2005. [1957].)"Theories about care put an unprecedented emphasis on vulnerability-taking up that challenge to transform what really counts in today's hospitals implies letting colleagues inside previously closely guarded professional boundaries" (2, our translation).

Gothic literature-a genre brimming with madness, supernaturalism, and psychological terror-offers innumerable case studies potentially representing how psychiatric patients perceive their treatment from healthcare professionals. Charlotte Perkins Gilman's famous 1892 short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" offers a poignant example of this through its fictional narrator, a diarist many interpret to be suffering from postpartum depression. The fiction here does not stray far from reality: Gilman orchestrated her diarist's experience to mirror her own, as both real author and fictional character suffocated from a melancholy only made worse by their physicians' insistence on following the "Rest Cure." While this instruction to cease all work and activity was a prevalent depression treatment at the time, Gilman, through "The Yellow Wallpaper," reveals how the intervention ultimately harmed more than helped because it overlooked her-and, by extension, her fictional diarist's- unique needs and identities. Today, while the ineffective Rest Cure no longer exists, applying observations from "The Yellow Wallpaper" to clinical research calls attention to underrepresentation in treatment development, a costly problem that could be mitigated by mindful incorporation of intersectionality theory into study designs.

Mental healthcare research increasingly focuses the needs of trans people and, in doing so, acknowledges knowledge and epistemic resources developed in trans communities. In this article, we aim to raise awareness of an ethical issue described by Emmalon Davis that may arise in the context of engaging with community knowledge and epistemic resources: the risk of epistemic appropriation. It is composed of two harms (1) a detachment of epistemic resources developed in the originating community and (2) a misdirection of these epistemic resources for epistemic goals of a dominant community. In this article, we map and discuss the ethical concerns in using knowledge originating in trans communities in terms of epistemic appropriation in the context of mental healthcare research. We first argue that misgendering, failing to reference non-academic sources and a lack of attribution in community authorship are forms of epistemic detachment. Second, we problematize cases of epistemic misdirection of trans epistemic resources, focusing on the examples of detransition and transition regret. We discuss harms related to epistemic appropriation in relationship to risks to safety. The article aims to raise awareness about the risk of epistemic appropriation both in researchers engaging with trans knowledge as well as in mental healthcare workers who seek information on trans.

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice.

Healthcare professionals often face ethical conflicts and challenges related to decision-making that have necessitated consideration of the use of conscientious objection (CO). No current guidelines exist within Spain's healthcare system regarding acceptable rationales for CO, the appropriate application of CO, or practical means to support healthcare professionals who wish to become conscientious objectors. As such, a procedural framework is needed that not only assures the appropriate use of CO by healthcare professionals but also demonstrates its ethical validity, legislative compliance through protection of moral freedoms and patients' rights to receive health care. Our proposal consists of prerequisites of eligibility for CO (individual reference, specific clinical context, ethical justification, assurance of non-discrimination, professional consistency, attitude of mutual respect, assurance of patient rights and safety) and a procedural process (notification and preparation, documentation and confidentiality, evaluation of prerequisites, non-abandonment, transparency, allowance for unforeseen objection, compensatory responsibilities, access to guidance and/or consultative advice, and organizational guarantee of professional substitution). We illustrate the real-world utility of the proposed framework through a case discussion in which our guidelines are applied.

Medicine is faced with a number of intractable modern challenges that can be understood in terms of hyper-intellectualization; a compassion crisis, burnout, dehumanization, and lost meaning. These challenges have roots in medical philosophy and indeed general Western philosophy by way of the historic exclusion of human emotion from human reason. The resolution of these medical challenges first requires a novel philosophic schema of human knowledge and reason that incorporates the balanced interaction of human intellect and human emotion. This schema of necessity requires a novel extension of dual-process theory into epistemology in terms of both intellect and emotion each generating a distinct natural kind of knowledge independent of the other as well as how these two forms of mental process together construct human reason. Such a novel philosophic schema is here proposed. This scheme is then applied to the practice of medicine with examples of practical applications with the goal of reformulating medical practice in a more knowledgable, balanced, and healthy way. This schema's expanded epistemology becomes the philosophic foundation for more fully incorporating the humanities in medicine.

Background: Teamwork in emergency medical services is a very important factor in efforts to improve patient safety. The potential differences of staff gender on communication, patient safety, and teamwork were omitted. The aim of this study is to evaluate these inadequately examined areas.

Methods: A descriptive and anonymous study was conducted with an online questionnaire targeting emergency physicians and paramedics. The participants were asked about teamwork, communication, patient safety and handling of errors.

Results: Seven hundred fourteen prehospital professionals from all over Germany participated. A total of 65.7% of the women harmed a patient (men 72.9%), and 52.6% were ashamed when mistakes were made (men 31.7%). 19.0% of the female participants considered their communication skills to be very good, compared to 81% of the men. More women than men did not want to appear incompetent (28.4%, 15.5%) and therefore did not speak openly about mistakes. Both genders saw the character of their colleagues as a reason for poor team communication (women 89.4%, men 84.9.%). Under high stress, communication decreased (women 35.9%, men 31.0%) and expression became inaccurate (women 18.7%, men 20.1%).

Conclusions: Team communication problems and teamwork in rescue services are independent of gender. Women seem to have more difficulty with open communication about mistakes because they seem to be subject to higher expectations. Work organization should be adapted to women's needs to enable more effective error management. We conclude that it is necessary to promote a positive error and communication culture to increase patient safety.

Background: Informed consent is one of the key principles of conducting research involving humans. When research participants give consent, they perform an act in which they utter, write or otherwise provide an authorisation to somebody to do something. This paper proposes a new understanding of the informed consent as a compositional act. This conceptualisation departs from a modular conceptualisation of informed consent procedures.

Methods: This paper is a conceptual analysis that explores what consent is and what it does or does not do. It presents a framework that explores the basic elements of consent and breaks it down into its component parts. It analyses the consent act by first identifying its basic elements, namely: a) data subjects or legal representative that provides the authorisation of consent; b) a specific thing that is being consented to; and c) specific agent(s) to whom the consent is given.

Results: This paper presents a framework that explores the basic elements of consent and breaks it down into its component parts. It goes beyond only providing choices to potential research participants; it explains the rationale of those choices or consenting acts that are taking place when speaking or writing an authorisation to do something to somebody.

Conclusions: We argue that by clearly differentiating the goals, the procedures of implementation, and what is being done or undone when one consent, one can better face the challenges of contemporary data-intensive biomedical research, particularly regarding the retention and use of data. Conceptualising consent as a compositional act enhances more efficient communication and accountability and, therefore, could enable more trustworthy acts of consent in biomedical science.