Search

This is a response to Barutta and Vollmann's article 'Physician-assisted death with limited access to palliative care.' I show how they misconstrue a key empirical statement made by the European Association for Palliative Care regarding legalisation of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Additionally, I include some further remarks on the relationship between euthanasia and palliative care. I read with interest the article, which delineate well several positions and gives a nice overview of arguments presented on either side. I also found the line of argument unprejudiced and clear, and am sure people working within palliative care would benefit from reading it.

Contrary to the widespread concern about over-treatment at the end of life, today, patient preferences for palliative care at the end of life are frequently respected. However, ethically challenging situations in the current healthcare climate are, instead, situations in which a competent patient requests active treatment with the goal of life-prolongation while the physician suggests best supportive care only. The argument of futility has often been used to justify unilateral decisions made by physicians to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, we argue that neither the concept of futility nor that of patient autonomy alone is apt for resolving situations in which physicians are confronted with patients' requests for active treatment. Instead, we integrate the relevant arguments that have been put forward in the academic discussion about 'futile' treatment into an ethical algorithm with five guiding questions: (1) Is there a chance that medical intervention will be effective in achieving the patient's treatment goal? (2) How does the physician evaluate the expected benefit and the potential harm of the treatment? (3) Does the patient understand his or her medical situation? (4) Does the patient prefer receiving treatment after evaluating the benefit-harm ratio and the costs? (5) Does the treatment require many resources? This algorithm shall facilitate approaching patients' requests for treatments deemed futile by the physician in a systematic way, and responding to these requests in an ethically appropriate manner. It thereby adds substantive considerations to the current procedural approaches of conflict resolution in order to improve decision making among physicians, patients and families.

The aim of this paper is to examine the way in which nurses manage patients who refuse nursing care procedures.This paper reports on a qualitative study which was undertaken to explore the way in which nurses obtain consent prior to nursing care procedures. Focus groups were carried out to obtain background data concerning how consent is obtained. Critical incidents were collected through in depth interviews as a means of focusing on specific incidents in clinical practice.Two teaching hospitals in England.Purposive sample of qualified nurses.When a patient refuses nursing care, nurses respond by giving information until the patient finally accedes to the procedure. Nurses will go to great lengths to achieve patients' agreement to the procedure, but the extent to which the agreement remains voluntary cannot be ascertained by the data collected in this study. If the patient does not eventually agree to a procedure, there is evidence that nurses will administer the care in the absence of consent.Nurses are concerned to obtain the patient's consent prior to the administration of nursing care but if this cannot be achieved do not regard obtaining consent as an absolute requirement. Consent is preferred, but not considered essential. Nurses have some understanding of the principles of informed consent but do not apply them to everyday clinical nursing practice.

Nineteen ninety-six saw the publication of a major Dutch survey into euthanasia in the Netherlands. This paper outlines the main statistical findings of this survey and considers whether it shows that voluntary euthanasia is under effective control in the Netherlands. The paper concludes that although there has been some improvement in compliance with procedural requirements, the practice of voluntary euthanasia remains beyond effective control.

The aim of this paper is to start a debate about ethical issues associated with the practice of clinical audit. This is an area that has not received much consideration. The role of clinical audit is to raise general clinical standards. The ethical issues of clinical audit may have far-reaching consequences for clinicians, patients, health care providers and purchasers. Guidance is required to provide consistency in approach so that those involved in clinical audit, at whatever level, can be confident that they are following good practice. Clinicians and managers often think of good practice as being a technical matter. The main point of this paper is to bring out important ethical dimensions to good practice.

This paper enquires into the nature and the extent of the obligations of nurses. It is argued that nurses appear to be obliged to undertake supererogatory acts if they take clause one of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) Code of Professional Conduct seriously (as, indeed, they are required to do). In the first part of the paper, the nature of nursing obligations is outlined, and then the groups and individuals to whom nurses have obligations are identified. Following a brief discussion of the moral foundation of the nurse's obligations to her/his employer, a common conflict of obligations is identified. Then a distinction is drawn between ordinary and extraordinary moral standards. Appreciation of this is necessary for an understanding of the criterion of what constitutes a supererogatory act. By the definition of supererogatory acts proposed below, it is suggested that actions such as whistleblowing satisfy that definition.

In June 2008 the UK government, supported by the Royal College of Nursing, stated that nursing care would be measured for compassion. This paper considers the implications of this statement by critically examining the relationship of compassion to care from a variety of perspectives. It is argued that the current market-driven approaches to healthcare involve redefining care as a pale imitation, even parody, of the traditional approach of the nurse as “my brother’s keeper”. Attempts to measure such parody can only measure artificial techniques and give rise to a McDonald’s-type nursing care rather than heartfelt care. The arguments of this paper, although applied to nursing, also apply to medicine and healthcare generally.

A recent paper in this journal (1) suggests that involving terminally ill patients in choices concerned with Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) produces 'psychological pain' and therefore is ill-advised. Such a claim rests on anecdotal observations made by the authors. In this paper I suggest that drawing conclusions in ethics, no less than in science, requires a rigorous framework and cannot be relegated to personal observation of a few cases. The paper concludes by suggesting that patients, if we acknowledge their valid interest in making their own choices, must themselves be allowed to make a prior choice about choosing. Those who may not wish to choose may properly be relieved of this burden and may allow another to choose for them. Routinely allowing others to make choices for competent adults, however, is likely to decrease communication with the dying patient and to introduce an atmosphere of suspicion and fear and to exclude the competent patient from his/her rightful place in the community.

The author reviews and continues the debate initiated by her recent paper in this journal. The paper was critical of certain aspects of palliative medicine, and caused Ashby and Stoffell to modify the framework they proposed in 1991. It now takes account of the need for artificial hydration to satisfy thirst, or other symptoms due to lack of fluid intake in the terminally ill. There is also a more positive attitude to the emotional needs and ethical views of the patient's family and care-givers. However, clinical concerns about the general reluctance to use artificial hydration in terminal care remain, and doubts persist about the ethical and legal arguments used by some palliative medicine specialists and others, to justify their approach. Published contributions to the debate to date, in professional journals, are reviewed. Key statements relating to the care of sedated terminally ill patients are discussed, and where necessary criticised.

The increasing use of opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) has prompted debate within the medical community about ethical challenges with respect to their implementation. The focus of debate is usually on the efficacy of OTAs at reducing opioid misuse, how OTAs may undermine trust between physicians and patients and the potential coercive nature of requiring patients to sign such agreements as a condition for receiving pain care. An important consideration missing from these conversations is the potential for racial bias in the current way that OTAs are incorporated into clinical practice and in the amount of physician discretion that current opioid guidelines support. While the use of OTAs has become mandatory in some states for certain classes of patients, physicians are still afforded great leeway in how these OTAs are implemented in clinical practice and how their terms should be enforced. This paper uses the guidelines provided for OTA implementation by the states of Indiana and Pennsylvania as case studies in order to argue that giving physicians certain kinds of discretion may exacerbate racial health disparities. This problem cannot simply be addressed by minimising physician discretion in general, but rather by providing mechanisms to hold physicians accountable for how they treat patients on long-term opioid therapy to ensure that such treatment is equitable.

It has recently been reported that some hospitals in the UK have placed a blanket restriction on the provision of maternal request caesarean sections (MRCS) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pregnancy and birthing services are obviously facing challenges during the current emergency, but we argue that a blanket ban on MRCS is both inappropriate and disproportionate. In this paper, we highlight the importance of MRCS for pregnant people’s health and autonomy in childbirth and argue that this remains crucial during the current emergency. We consider some potential arguments—based on pregnant people’s health and resource allocation—that might be considered justification for the limitation of such services. We demonstrate, however, that these arguments are not as persuasive as they might appear because there is limited evidence to indicate either that provision of MRCS is always dangerous for pregnant people in the circumstances or would be a substantial burden on a hospital’s ability to respond to the pandemic. Furthermore, we argue that even if MRCS was not a service that hospitals are equipped to offer to all pregnant persons who seek it, the current circumstances cannot justify a blanket ban on an important service and due attention must be paid to individual circumstances.

Globally, there is a lack of adherence to the WHO definition of live birth. This is leading to untenable ethical inconsistencies due to significant variation in which infants are being acknowledged and registered as alive. If an infant is not registered as alive, there can be no acknowledgement of their rights as a child, and there are subsequent implications for worldwide child health resources and funding. Being alive should not be a quality that is geographically determined. This paper explores the differing definitions that are used regarding live birth and the ethical and practical implications for infants, their families and child health worldwide.

The title of this book embraces a subject that is very topical in the field of health care. It is a collection of papers most of which were initially presented at the Centre for Cross-Cultural Research on Women. All but one of the authors are women. The papers themselves are very disparate, covering diverse topics in a variety of ways. Subjects covered include a daughter’s story of her mother’s dying and death from undiagnosed Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease; the problems for parents raising triplets; issues arising from the Depo-Provera contraceptive debate; the nature of human rights in relation to medical care; disease prevention; methods of research in relation to HIV and men who have sex with men, and nurses’ moral/political voices as expressions of care. Each writer’s subject …

Antimicrobial therapy is a cornerstone of therapy in critically ill patients; however, the wide use of antibiotics has resulted in increased antimicrobial resistance and outbreaks of resistant disease. To counter this, many hospitals have instituted antimicrobial stewardship programmes as a way to reduce the inappropriate use of antibiotics. However, uptake of antimicrobial stewardship programmes has been variable, as many clinicians fear that they may put individual patients at risk of treatment failure. In this paper, I argue that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are indeed a form of bedside rationing, and explore the risks and benefits of such programmes for individual patients in the intensive care unit, and the critically ill population in general. Using Norman Daniels' Accountability for Reasonableness as a framework for evaluating resource allocation policies, I conclude that antimicrobial stewardship programmes are an ethically sound form of bedside rationing.

Children participating in clinical research may show signs of discomfort, discontent, dissent and so on, that cannot be solved by comforting the child. When, and on what ground, should such signs lead to the decision to withdraw the child from the trial? In order to adequately protect children participating in clinical research, it is important to know how to determine during the course of a trial whether participation is still justified. Yet to date, legislation, ethical guidelines and medical ethical literature do not provide sufficient guidance. Therefore, in this paper we aim to provide the required clarity. We identify two types of reasons for taking signs of discomfort, discontent, dissent and so on, very seriously: (1) the principle of respect for the growing autonomy of the child, in those cases where a child expresses a clear, explicit and persistent wish to be withdrawn from the study; and (2) the principle of non-maleficence, in those cases where for an individual child, the research burden appears to be higher than acceptable. We recommend to closely monitor each child during the course of the study, thereby being vigilant to whether the child still wants to continue and to whether the actual burden the child experiences is still acceptable in relation to the permitted levels of burden.

Back in 2017, Moodley and Rennie published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics entitled ‘Penile transplantation as an appropriate response to botched traditional circumcisions in South Africa: an argument against.’1 As the title suggests, we took a critical view towards penile transplantation as a way of responding to the problem of young men in South Africa experiencing genital mutilation and amputation as a result of traditional circumcision practices. Our main conclusion was that prevention is key: social, cultural and political strategies to prevent mutilations and amputations should be prioritised, rather than surgical solutions, particularly in low-resource communities. Van der Merwe, who led the surgical team for the first successful penile transplantation in Stellenbosch, South Africa, has responded to our views, and in what follows, we will distill and evaluate his main arguments. Cost and access to services : Van der Merwe states that our position is mostly based on costs, that is, that penile transplantation is expensive and it is unrealistic to think that young men in traditional communities will be able to avail themselves of such services. Against this, Van Der Merwe argues that the actual cost of penile transplantation can be favourably compared with another, more established medical intervention, that is, renal transplantation. Of course, cost comparisons are difficult with a new intervention when it is …

Caesarean delivery is a common and life-saving intervention. However, it involves an overall increased risk for short-term and long-term complications for both mother and child compared with vaginal delivery. From a medical point of view, healthcare professionals should, therefore, not recommend caesarean sections without any anticipated medical benefit. Consequently, caesarean sections requested by women for maternal reasons can cause conflict between professional recommendations and maternal autonomy. How can we assure ethically justified decisions in the case of caesarean sections on maternal request in healthcare systems that also respect patients’ autonomy and aspire for shared decisions? In the maternal–professional relationship, which can be characterised in terms of reciprocal obligations and rights, women may not be entitled to demand a C-section. Nevertheless, women have a right to respect for their deliberative capacity in the decision-making process. How should we deal with a situation of non-agreement between a woman and healthcare professional when the woman requests a caesarean section in the absence of obvious medical indications? In this paper, we illustrate how the maternal–professional relationship is embedded in a nexus of power, trust and risk that reinforces a structural inferiority for women. To accommodate for beneficial use of power, these decision processes need to be trustworthy. We propose a framework, inspired by Lukes’ three-dimensional notion of power, which serves to facilitate trust and allows for beneficial power in shared processes of decision-making about the delivery mode for women requesting planned C-sections. publishedVersion

Discussions of patient-centred care and patient autonomy in bioethics have tended to focus on the decision-making context and the process of obtaining informed consent, leaving open the question of how patients ought to be counselled in the daily maintenance of their health and management of chronic disease. Patient activation is an increasingly prominent counselling approach and measurement tool that aims to improve patients' confidence and skills in managing their own health conditions. The strategy, which has received little conceptual or ethical analysis, raises important questions about how clinicians ought to foster confidence and a sense of control in their patients without exposing them to blame, stigma and other harms. In this paper, we describe patient activation, discuss its relationship to personal responsibility, autonomy and health disparities, and make recommendations regarding its use and measurement.

Young children with cancer are treated with interventions that can have a high risk of compromising their reproductive potential. ‘Fertility preservation’ for children who have not yet reached puberty involves surgically removing and cryopreserving reproductive tissue prior to treatment in the expectation that strategies for the use of this tissue will be developed in the future. Fertility preservation for prepubertal children is ethically complex because the techniques largely lack proven efficacy for this age group. There is professional difference of opinion about whether it is ethical to offer such ‘experimental’ procedures. The question addressed in this paper is: when, if ever, is it ethically justifiable to offer fertility preservation surgery to prepubertal children? We present the ethical concerns about prepubertal fertility preservation, drawing both on existing literature and our experience discussing this issue with clinicians in clinical ethics case consultations. We argue that offering the procedure is ethically justifiable in certain circumstances. For many children, the balance of benefits and burdens is such that the procedure is ethically permissible but not ethically required; when the procedure is medically safe, it is the parents’ decision to make, with appropriate information and guidance from the treating clinicians. We suggest that clinical ethics support processes are necessary to assist clinicians to engage with the ethical complexity of prepubertal fertility preservation and describe the framework that has been integrated into the pathway of care for patients and families attending the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.

Many families of patients hold the view that it is their right to be present during a loved one's resuscitation, while the majority of patients also express the comfort and support they would feel by having them there. Currently, family presence is more commonly accepted in paediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than adult CPR. Even though many guidelines are in favour of this practice and recognise potential benefits, healthcare professionals are hesitant to support adult family presence to the extent that paediatric family presence is supported. However, in this paper, we suggest that the ethical case to justify family presence during paediatric resuscitation (P-FPDR) is weaker than the justification of family presence during adult resuscitation (A-FPDR). We go on to support this claim using three main arguments that people use in clinical ethics to justify FPDR. These include scarcity of evidence documenting disruption, psychological benefits to family members following the incident and respect for patient autonomy. We demonstrate that these arguments actually apply more strongly to A-FPDR compared with P-FPDR, thereby questioning the common attitude of healthcare professionals of allowing the latter while mostly opposing A-FPDR. Importantly, we do not wish to suggest that P-FPDR should not be allowed. Rather, we suggest that since P-FPDR is commonly (and should be) allowed, so should A-FPDR. This is because the aforementioned arguments that are used to justify FPDR in general actually make a stronger case for A-FPDR.

In this paper it is argued that physicians’ restrictive attitudes in offering abortions during 1946–1965 in Sweden were due to their private values. The values, however, were rarely presented openly. Instead physicians’ values influenced their assessment of the facts presented—that is, the women9s’ trustworthiness. In this manner the physicians were able to conceal their private values and impede the women from getting what they wanted and needed. The practice was concealed from both patients and physicians and never publicly discussed. It is also argued that a similar tacit practice could currently be applied by palliative care physicians. Such practice might allow palliative care physicians to be restrictive when offering sedation therapy without appearing paternalistic or declaring conscientious objections. However, the practice runs counter to patients’ right to participate in making decisions. The women seeking abortion began to oppose the situation and eventually a new abortion law was introduced 1975. Patients at the end of life will never be able to protest against palliative care physicians’ restrictive attitudes. This is a vulnerable and weak group, unable to lodge complaints after the treatment. In order to respect patients’ autonomy, even suffering patients at the end of their lives, it is suggested that physicians should openly declare their values when it comes to providing treatments that might shorten life. Such transparency might facilitate more genuine shared decision-making and accordingly less suboptimal end-of-life care.

Patient autonomy—with an emphasis on informed consent and the right to refuse treatment—is a cornerstone of modern bioethics. Within discussions about patient autonomy, feminist bioethicists have argued for a relational approach to autonomy. Under a relational framework, we must look beyond the individual moment of choice to include the role relationships and specific contexts can play in supporting or undermining autonomy. Given the day-to-day interactions they have with patients, nurses play a significant role in helping patients understand the nature of their illnesses and make truly informed decisions. However, the skills of expert nurses also support patient autonomy in more subtle ways. Specifically, nurses develop skills of attunement that help them to find subtle ways to support patient autonomy. However, in order to effectively do this, nurses need institutions that support their professional autonomy. In this paper, I look at the ways nurses have been inhibited in their professional autonomy both as a profession and as individual practitioners. I argue that turning our attention to institutions and the role they play in supporting or undermining nurses9 autonomy can help promote nurses’ professional autonomy and thereby enhance patient autonomy.

Background While it is generally acknowledged that self-prescribing among physicians poses some risk, research finds such behaviour to be common and in certain cases accepted by the medical community. Largely absent from the literature is knowledge about other activities doctors perform for their own medical care or for the informal treatment of family and friends. This study examined the variety, frequency and association of behaviours doctors report providing informally. Informal care included prescriptions, as well as any other type of personal medical treatment (eg, monitoring chronic or serious conditions). Method A survey was sent to 2500 randomly-selected physicians in Colorado, 600 individuals returned questionnaires with usable data. The authors hypothesised: (1) physicians would prescribe the same types of treatment at home as they prescribed professionally; and (2) physicians who informally prescribed addictive medications would be more likely to engage in other types of informal medical care. Results Physicians who wrote prescriptions for antibiotics, psychotropics and opioids at work were more likely to prescribe these medications at home. Those prescribing addictive drugs outside of the office treated more serious illnesses in emergency situations, more chronic conditions and more major medical/surgical conditions informally than did those not routinely prescribing addictive medications. Physicians reported a variety of informal care behaviour and high frequency of informal care to family and friends. Discussion The frequency and variety of informal care reported in this study strongly argues for profession-wide discussion about ethical and guideline considerations for such behaviour. These areas are discussed in the paper.

In April 2009 a Cochrane review was published assessing the effectiveness of male circumcision in preventing acquisition of HIV. It concluded that there was strong evidence that male circumcision, performed in a medical setting, reduces the acquisition of HIV by men engaging in heterosexual sex. Yet, importantly, the review noted that further research was required to assess the feasibility, desirability and cost-effectiveness of implementation within local contexts. This paper endorses the need for such research and suggests that, in its absence, it is premature to promote circumcision as a reliable strategy for combating HIV. Since articles in leading medical journals as well as the popular press continue to do so, scientific researchers should think carefully about how their conclusions may be translated both to policy makers and to a more general audience. The importance of addressing ethico-legal concerns that such trials may raise is highlighted. The understandable haste to find a solution to the HIV pandemic means that the promise offered by preliminary and specific research studies may be overstated. This may mean that ethical concerns are marginalized. Such haste may also obscure the need to be attentive to local cultural sensitivities, which vary from one African region to another, in formulating policy concerning circumcision.

Background In the Netherlands, using drugs to deliberately end the life of a severely defective newborn baby who is in extreme suffering can be permissible under very precise circumstances. This does not mean that all Dutch neonatologists are willing to engage in such behaviour. This paper discusses the use of neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) in connection with abstention decisions in neonatology and the boundaries between 'deliberate ending of life' and other end-of-life decisions. These boundaries are of paramount importance because, of all end-of-life decisions, only 'deliberate ending of life' must be reported by the responsible doctor and exposes him to the risk of being prosecuted.Methods 14 Dutch neonatologists were presented with a hypothetical case of a severely asphyxiated baby who faces a long dying process after withdrawal of 'medically futile' (zinloos) life-sustaining ventilation. Doctors were asked whether it is acceptable to administer NMBs in this situation and whether such behaviour should be reported.Results and conclusions Doctors' responses were heterogeneous, showing that the acceptability of using NMBs in certain situations and the boundaries between end-of-life decisions are currently a subject of discussion among Dutch neonatologists. Many respondents reported feeling threatened by the potential involvement of the criminal law authorities in the system of control over 'deliberate ending of life'.

Historically, the triage of temporarily scarce health resources has served narrow utilitarian ends. The recent H1N1 pandemic experience provided an opportunity for expanding the theoretical foundations/understandings of critical care triage in the context of declared infectious pandemics. This paper briefly explores the ethics-related challenges associated with the development of modern critical care triage protocols and provides descriptions of some 'enhanced fairness' features which were developed through the use of an inclusive deliberative engagement process by a Canadian provincial Department of Health.

The Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR) is a commonly used measure of hospital mortality that is standardised for age, comorbidities and other factors. By tradition, this statistic has always excluded patients classified as 'palliative'. The HSMR has never been validated as a reliable measure of quality of care, and it can be very hard to interpret, partly due to difficulties with defining and applying the term 'palliative'. In this paper, we review the Canadian experience with the palliative status flag, and explain why it is so difficult to define and apply consistently. We also highlight some potential concerns about clinicians labelling inpatients as 'palliative' during their admission. Finally, we propose an organisational ethics framework, and six specific suggestions for hospitals to use when publishing statistics such as the HSMR.

The principal objective for most patients seeking orthodontic services is a detectable improvement in their dentofacial appearance. Orthodontic treatment, in the mind of the patient, is something that makes you look better, feel better about yourself, and perhaps enhances your social possibilities, ie, to find a companion or make a positive impression during a job interview. Orthodontics, as a speciality, has collectively advanced the idea that enhanced occlusion (bite) improves the health and longevity of the dentition, and as a result many patients seeking orthodontic services affirm that their secondary goal of treatment is an oral health benefit. It would appear that there is some disparity between the end-user of orthodontic services and the orthodontic provider's perception of what constitutes orthodontic need. The aim of this paper is to examine two contrasting models that characterise how dentists 'sell' orthodontic services to patients and to discuss the conflict between professional ethics, practice management and evidence-based decision-making in orthodontic practice.

To investigate the current status of hospital clinical ethics committees (CEC) and how they have evolved in Canada over the past 20 years, this paper presents an overview of the findings from a 2008 survey and compares these findings with two previous Canadian surveys conducted in 1989 and 1984. All Canadian hospitals over 100 beds, of which at least some were acute care, were surveyed to determine the structure of CEC, how they function, the perceived achievements of these committees and opinions about areas with which CEC should be involved. The percentage of hospitals with CEC in our sample was found to be 85% compared with 58% and 18% in 1989 and 1984, respectively. The wide variation in the size of committees and the composition of their membership has continued. Meetings of CEC have become more regularised and formalised over time. CEC continue to be predominately advisory in their nature, and by 2008 there was a shift in the priority of the activities of CEC to meeting ethics education needs and providing counselling and support with less emphasis on advising about policy and procedures. More research is needed on how best to define what the scope of activities of CEC should be in order to meet the needs of hospitals in Canada and elsewhere. More research also is needed on the actual outcomes to patients, families, health professionals and organisations from the work of these committees in order to support the considerable time committee members devote to this endeavour.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are often assumed to have a duty to work, even if faced with personal risk. This is particularly so for professionals (doctors and nurses). However, the health service also depends on non-professionals, such as porters, cooks and cleaners. The duty to work is currently under scrutiny because of the ongoing challenge of responding to pandemic influenza, where an effective response depends on most uninfected HCWs continuing to work, despite personal risk. This paper reports findings of a survey of HCWs (n = 1032) conducted across three National Health Service trusts in the West Midlands, UK, to establish whether HCWs' likelihood of working during a pandemic is associated with views about the duty to work. The sense that HCWs felt that they had a duty to work despite personal risk emerged strongly regardless of professional status. Besides a strong sense that everyone should pull together, all kinds of HCWs recognised a duty to work even in difficult circumstances, which correlated strongly with their stated likelihood of working. This suggests that HCWs' decisions about whether or not they are prepared to work during a pandemic are closely linked to their sense of duty. However, respondents' sense of the duty to work may conflict with their sense of duty to family, as well as other factors such as a perceived lack of reciprocity from their employers. Interestingly, nearly 25% of doctors did not consider that they had a duty to work where doing so would pose risks to themselves or their families.

Disabling pain or symptoms can occur at any age from many different causes. Pain and palliative specialists are able to relieve most pain and symptoms, although repeated adjustments to modalities, medications and doses may be needed. Because pain and palliative specialists comprise only a small percentage of physicians, many patients find it difficult to access them or obtain pain relief. Globally, there are too few such specialists to meet existing needs. Most are affiliated with hospice and palliative units, so their accessibility to patients without terminal conditions is negligible. Doctors outside pain and palliative specialties are often unfamiliar with pain guidelines and sceptical about patient reports of unrelieved pain. They are therefore likely to undertreat it. Undertreating pain, however, violates respect for persons and beneficence. This paper reviews literature supporting these claims and offers a narrative description of the author's attempts to find relief from shingles and postherpetic neuralgia. It argues that physicians in most specialties are not, but should be, familiar with palliative evidence and guidelines so that they are equipped to relieve pain and symptoms quickly and effectively. Such information should be routinely introduced in medical curricula to encourage the mastery of knowledge, attitudes and skills necessary to upholding ethical principles and to ensure that more doctors in any discipline are willing to believe and be compassionate to patients whose pain is unresponsive to initial treatments. Routinely exposing students to such information would better prepare them to fulfil their professional duties to patients and society.

This paper discusses the responsibility of general practitioners who are consulted by women who have been physically injured by the men with whom they live. The paper draws on a study of 50 women who were interviewed at a refuge for battered women, and considers the help which they received, or did not receive, from their general practitioners. Such women are likely to face many difficulties: it is perhaps the essence of their problem that, because it is potentially the concern of so many people, it can so easily become the concern of nobody--except of the woman herself.

Medical student and resident participation in global health experiences (GHEs) has significantly increased over the last decade. In response to growing student interest and the proven impact of such experiences on the education and career decisions of resident physicians, many medical schools have begun to establish programmes dedicated to global health education. For the innumerable benefits of GHEs, it is important to note that medical students have the potential to do more harm than good in these settings when they exceed their actual capabilities as physicians-in-training. While medical training programmes are beginning to provide students with the knowledge to put their GHEs in context, they must remember that they also bear the responsibility of training their students in a framework to approach these experiences in a principled and professional way. It is necessary that these institutions provide adequate and formalised preparation for both clinical and ethical challenges of working in resource-poor settings. This paper outlines potential benefits and risks of GHEs and delineates recommendations to some of the current issues.

The process of obtaining informed consent to participate in a clinical study presents many challenges for research conducted in a population of patients with schizophrenia. Morally valid, informed consent must include information sharing, decisional capacity, and capacity for voluntarism. This paper examines the unique features of schizophrenia that may threaten each of these elements of informed consent, and it proposes additional safeguards in the process of gaining informed consent from individuals with schizophrenia in order to maximise the decision‐making potential of this patient population.

Robert Veatch has proposed a model of the doctor-patient relationship that has as its foundation the sharing of values between the doctor and the patient. This paper uses qualitative research conducted with six doctors involved in the long term, specialised care of HIV positive patients in South Australia to explore the practical application of Veatch's value sharing model in that setting. The research found that the doctors in this study linked "values" with sexual identity such that they defined value sharing, in part, as a shared set of values and beliefs about sexual identity and practices. They voluntarily identified themselves as either homosexual or heterosexual and they regarded the relation between their own sexual identity and that of their patients as important for the provision of quality care. None of the doctors thought that value sharing, in the way they defined it, was essential to the clinical relationship, but the homosexual doctors attributed a greater degree of importance to it than their heterosexual colleagues.

If we accept euthanasia for adults, should we also accept voluntary euthanasia for children? In 'Child Euthanasia: Should We Just Not Talk about It?', Luc Bovens answers this question affirmatively. Bovens examines five arguments against extending euthanasia to minors, the arguments being weightiness, capability of discernment, pressure, sensitivity and sufficient palliative care. He rejects each of these arguments. In this paper, I provide a rejoinder for each of his responses. I also critique his view that opponents of euthanasia have extra responsibility to promote palliative care. On the contrary, if euthanasia is legalised, advocates of euthanasia have a special obligation to promote improvements in palliative care.

It remains unclear what patient advocacy actually entails and what values it ought to embody. It will be useful to ascertain whether advocacy means supporting any decision the patient makes, or if the advocate can claim to represent the patient by asserting well-intentioned paternalistic claims on the patient's behalf. This is especially significant because the position of advocate brings with it certain privileges on the basis of of presumed insight into patient-perceived interests, namely, entitlement to take part in clinical decision making and increased professional standing. Three issues related to patient advocacy will be explored: are patient advocates necessary; what does advocacy entail, and who ought to represent patients in this way—arguments for and against prospective candidates will also be covered. The paper considers whether advocates are necessary since not only can they be dangerously paternalistic, but the salutary values advocacy embodies are already part of good professional health care.

When is it permissible for medical professionals to withhold a medical intervention? Several considerations might immediately be deemed morally relevant to such a decision. Does the medical professional believe that the intervention is in the patient's best interests? Is the patient competent, and has she refused to consent to the intervention? These considerations are routinely invoked in end-of-life decision-making. Indeed, in this issue, White et al. present important empirical data concerning the role that law and personal ethical principles play in healthcare professionals' decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. Other articles in this issue go beyond the end of life context to address provocative questions about the permissibility of (and the rationales for) withholding different kinds of medical interventions from different kinds of (potential) patients. In the clinical ethics section of this issue, papers by Paddy McQueen and Heidi Metres address the question of whether physicians may justifiably refuse voluntary sterilisation requests of competent women. Both authors acknowledge that such refusals may be grounded by the physician's prediction of future regret amongst putative recipients of the intervention. In …

Using ethnographic data lifted from an investigation into midwifery talk and practice in the South of England, this paper sets out to interrogate the ethics underpinning current admission policy for Free Standing (midwifery led) Birth Centres in the UK. The aim of this interrogation is to contest the grounds upon which birth centres admissions are managed, particularly the over-reliance on abstract calculations of risk--far removed from the material lived experience of the mother wishing to access these birth centre services.

Almost all articles on education in medical ethics present proposals for or describe experiences of teaching students in different health professions. Since experienced staff also need such education, the purpose of this paper is to exemplify and discuss educational approaches that may be used after graduation. As an example we describe the experiences with a five-day European residential course on ethics for neonatal intensive care personnel. In this multidisciplinary course, using a case-based approach, the aim was to enhance the participants' understanding of ethical principles and their relevance to clinical and research activities. Our conclusion is that working with realistic cases encourages practising nurses and physicians to apply their previous knowledge and new concepts learnt in the course, thus helping them to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Equipoise is widely regarded to be an essential prerequisite for the ethical conduct of a randomised controlled trial. There are some circumstances however, under which it is acceptable to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the absence of equipoise. Limited access to the preferred intervention is one such circumstance. In this paper we present an example of a randomised trial in which access to the preferred intervention, preschool education, was severely limited by resource constraints. The ethical issues that arise when conducting randomised trials in health care are considered in the context of trials of social interventions. In health, education and social welfare, effective interventions are frequently limited due to budgetary constraints. Explicit acknowledgement of the need to ration interventions, and the use of random allocation to do this even in the absence of equipoise, would facilitate learning more about the effects of these interventions.

This paper considers the ethics of routine antenatal HIV testing and the role of informed consent within such a policy in order to decide how we should proceed in this area--a decision that ultimately rests on the relative importance we give to public health goals on the one hand and respect for individual autonomy on the other.

This paper explores the use of advance directives in clinical dementia research. The focus is on advance consent to participation of demented patients in non-therapeutic research involving more than minimal risks and/or burdens. First, morally relevant differences between advance directives for treatment and care, and advance directives for dementia research are discussed. Then attention is paid to the philosophical issue of dementia and personal identity, and the implications for the moral authority of research advance directives. Thirdly, a number of practical shortcomings of advance directives for non-therapeutic dementia research are explored and attention is paid to the role of proxies. It is concluded that upon a closer look the initial attractiveness of advance directives for dementia research is lessened, and that it is doubtful whether these instruments can compensate for the lack of subject consent in case of non-therapeutic dementia research involving more than minimal risks and/or burdens for the incompetent demented subject.

Respecting and encouraging autonomy in the elderly is basic to the practice of geriatrics. In this paper, we examine the practice of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and "artificial" feeding in a geriatric unit in a general hospital subscribing to jewish orthodox religious principles, in which the sanctity of life is a fundamental ethical guideline. The literature on the administration of food and water in terminal stages of illness, including dementia, still shows division of opinion on the morality of withdrawing nutrition. We uphold the principle that as long as feeding by naso-gastric (N-G) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) does not constitute undue danger or arouse serious opposition it should be given, without causing suffering to the patient. This is part of basic care, and the doctor has no mandate to withdraw this. The question of CPR still shows much discrepancy regarding elderly patients' wishes, and doctors' opinions about its worthwhileness, although up to 10 percent survive. Our geriatric patients rarely discuss the subject, but it is openly ventilated with families who ask about it, who are then involved in the decision-making, and the decision about CPR or "do-not-resuscitate" (DNR) is based on clinical and prognostic considerations.

Despite moves to enhance the autonomy of clients of health care services, the use of a variety of physical restraints on the freedom of movement of frail, elderly patients continues in nursing homes. This paper confronts the use of restraints on two grounds. First, it challenges the assumption that use of restraints is necessary to protect the welfare of frail, elderly patients by drawing on a range of data indicating the limited efficacy of restraints. Secondly, it argues that the duty to respect individual autonomy extends to a duty to respect the autonomy of patients who are elderly, frail and living in nursing homes.

Sexual self-determination is considered a fundamental human right by most of us living in Western societies. While we must abide by laws regarding consent and coercion, in general we expect to be able to engage in sexual behaviour whenever, and with whomever, we choose. For older people with dementia living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs), however, the issue becomes more complex. Staff often struggle to balance residents' rights with their duty of care, and negative attitudes towards older people's sexuality can lead to residents' sexual expression being overlooked, ignored, or even discouraged. In particular, questions as to whether residents with dementia are able to consent to sexual activity or physically intimate relationships pose a challenge to RACF staff, and current legislation does little to assist them. This paper will address these issues, and will argue that, while every effort should be made to ensure that no resident comes to harm, RACFs must respect the rights of residents with dementia to make decisions about their sexuality, intimacy and physical relationships.

This paper explores ethical issues relating to the management of patients who are terminally ill and unable to maintain their own nutrition and hydration. A policy of sedation without hydration or nutrition is used in palliative medicine under certain circumstances. The author argues that this policy is dangerous, medically, ethically and legally, and can be disturbing for relatives. The role of the family in management is discussed. This issue requires wide debate by the public and the profession.

This paper raises the questions: 'What do we expect from nursing ethics?' and 'Is the literature of nursing ethics any different from that of medical ethics?' It is suggested that rather than develop nursing ethics as a separate field writers in nursing ethics should take a lead in making the patient the central focus of health care ethics. The case is made for empirical work in health care ethics and it is suggested that a good way of setting about this is to ask practising nurses about the real ethical problems they encounter.

Newborn screening is the programme through which newborn babies are screened for a variety of conditions shortly after birth. Programmes such as this are individually oriented but resemble traditional public health programmes because they are targeted at large groups of the population and they are offered as preventive interventions to a population considered healthy. As such, an ethical tension exists between the goals of promoting the high uptake of supposedly 'effective' population-oriented programmes and the goal of promoting genuinely informed decision-making. There is, however, a lack of understanding with regard to how parents experience the tension between promoting uptake and facilitating informed choice. This paper addresses this issue, and data are presented to show how aspects of the timing, presentation of information and procedural routinisation of newborn screening serves to impact on the decisions made by parents.