Search

The role that resistance plays in medicine and medical education is ill-defined. Although physicians and students have been involved in protests related to the COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, police brutality, and gender inequity, resistance has not been prominent in medical education's discourses, and medical education has not supported students' role and responsibility in developing professional approaches to resistance. While learners should not pick and choose what aspects of medical education they engage with, neither should their moral agency and integrity be compromised. To that end, the authors argue for professional resistance to become a part of medical education. This article sets out a rationale for a more explicit and critical recognition of the role of resistance in medical education by exploring its conceptual basis, its place both in training and practice, and the ways in which medical education might more actively embrace and situate resistance as a core aspect of professional practice. The authors suggest different strategies that medical educators can employ to embrace resistance in medical education and propose a set of principles for resistance in medicine and medical education. Embracing resistance as part of medical education requires a shift in attention away from training physicians solely to replicate and sustain existing systems and practices and toward developing their ability and responsibility to resist situations, structures, and acts that are oppressive, harmful, or unjust.

Medical students, residents, and faculty have begun to examine and grapple with the legacy and persistence of structural racism in academic medicine in the United States. Until recently, the discourse and solutions have largely focused on augmenting diversity across the medical education continuum through increased numbers of learners from groups underrepresented in medicine (UIM). Despite deliberate measures implemented by medical schools, residency programs, academic institutions, and national organizations, meaningful growth in diversity has not been attained. To the contrary, the UIM representation among medical trainees has declined or remained below the representation in the general population. Inequities continue to be observed in multiple domains of medical education, including grading, admission to honor societies, and extracurricular obligations. These inequities, alongside learners' experiences and calls for action, led the authors to conclude that augmenting diversity is necessary but insufficient to achieve equity in the learning environment. In this article, the authors advance a 4-step framework, built on established principles and practices of antiracism, to dismantle structural racism in medical education. They ground each step of the framework in the concepts and skills familiar to medical educators. By drawing parallels with clinical reasoning, medical error, continuous quality improvement, the growth mindset, and adaptive expertise, the authors show how learners, faculty, and academic leaders can implement the framework's 4 steps-see, name, understand, and act-to shift the paradigm from a goal of diversity to a stance of antiracism in medical education., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges.)

Background: An estimated US $2.6 billion loss is attributed to health care fraud and abuse. With traditional health care claims verification and reimbursement, the health care provider submits a claim after rendering services to a patient, which is then verified and reimbursed by the payer. However, this process leaves out a critical stakeholder: the patient for whom the services are actually rendered. This lack of patient participation introduces a risk of fraud and abuse. Blockchain technology enables secure data management with transparency, which could mitigate this risk of health care fraud and abuse., Objective: The aim of this study is to develop a framework using blockchain to record claims data and transactions in an immutable format and to enable the patient to act as a validating node to help detect and prevent health care fraud and abuse., Methods: We developed a health care fraud and abuse blockchain technical framework and prototype using key blockchain tools and application layers including consensus algorithms, smart contracts, tokens, and governance based on digital identity on the Ethereum platform (Ethereum Foundation)., Results: Our technical framework maps to the claims adjudication process and focuses on Medicare claims, with the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as the central authority. A prototype of the framework system was developed using the blockchain platform Ethereum (Ethereum Foundation), with its design features, workflow, smart contract functions, system architecture, and software implementation outlined. The software stack used to build the system consisted of a front-end user interface framework, a back-end processing server, and a blockchain network. React was used for the user interface framework, and NodeJS and an Express server were used for the back-end processing server; Solidity was the smart contract language used to interact with a local Ethereum blockchain network., Conclusions: The proposed framework and the initial prototype have the potential to improve the health care claims process by using blockchain technology for secure data storage and consensus mechanisms, which make the claims adjudication process more patient-centric for the purposes of identifying and preventing health care fraud and abuse. Future work will focus on the use of synthetic or historic CMS claims data to assess the real-world viability of the framework., (©Tim Ken Mackey, Ken Miyachi, Danny Fung, Samson Qian, James Short. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 10.09.2020.)

Organisations can have a significant impact (positive or negative) on society through their actions and decisions. Given this reality, it is important that they are held responsible and accountable for the consequences of their actions. This concept is often referred to as 'social responsibility'. However, 'social responsibility', as currently conceived in the literature, neglects a specific focus on health as a social goal. Additionally, there are no practical tools to capture this concept in a holistic way to facilitate implementation and monitoring of organisational improvement. This paper reports on the process of developing a more holistic conceptual framework and tool for assessing organisational social responsibility and accountability for health (OSRAH). We conducted a review of the published and grey literature and engaged in expert consultation and focus group discussions. The initial OSRAH framework and the self-assessment tool were finalised for implementation and used by 95 organisations at a national event in Iran in February 2017. The results of the assessment data collected at the event showed organisations scored lowest in the domain of community health and highest in the domain of employee health. The OSRAH framework and assessment tool represents a new understanding of health and its determinants in organisations outside the health sector. It integrates health within the existing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) culture of organisations. The process of creating the tool and implementing it at the national festival of OSRAH in Iran created momentum for intersectoral action. This experience can inspire researchers and practitioners in other countries, especially in developing countries, to develop their own local definition and practical assessment framework for responsibility and accountability.

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common conceptual areas in discussions of (surgical) innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the themes of "purpose" (about drivers of innovation), "place" (about contexts of innovation), "process" (about differentiating innovation), "product" (about tangible and intangible results of innovation) and "person" (about personal factors and viewpoint). These conceptual areas are used in varying-sometimes contradictory-ways in different discussions. Highlighting these conceptual areas of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term "innovation" carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term "innovation" from serious discourse aimed at evaluation and regulation of surgery. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.

In a first major study, the UK's Royal Society found that 76% of people in the UK are in favour of therapeutic germline genomic editing to correct genetic diseases in human embryos, but found there was little appetite for germline genomic editing for non-therapeutic purposes. Assuming the UK and other governments acted on these findings, can lawmakers and policymakers coherently regulate the use of biomedical innovations by permitting their use for therapeutic purposes but prohibiting their use for enhancement purposes? This paper examines the very common claim in the enhancement literature that the therapy v enhancement distinction does little meaningful work in helping us think through the ethical issues, a claim that has significant implications for these lawmakers and policymakers who may wish to regulate genomic editing techniques to reflect the findings of this important study. The focus of this paper is on germline genomic editing as one of the main themes in this special issue., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The concept of vulnerability is widely used in research ethics to signal attention to participants who require special protections in research. However, this concept is vague and under-theorized. There is also growing concern that the dominant categorical approach to vulnerability (as exemplified by research ethics regulations and guidelines delineating vulnerable groups) is ethically problematic because of its assumptions about groups of people and is, in fact, not very guiding. An agreed-upon strategy is to move from categorical towards analytical approaches (focused on analyzing types and sources of vulnerability) to vulnerability. Beyond this agreement, however, scholars have been advancing competing accounts of vulnerability without consensus about its appropriate operationalization in research ethics. Based on previous debates, we propose that a comprehensive account of vulnerability for research ethics must include four components: definition, normative justifications, application, and implications. Concluding that no existing accounts integrate these components in a functional (i.e., practically applicable) manner, we propose an integrative and functional account of vulnerability inspired by pragmatist theory and enriched by bioethics literature. Using an example of research on deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression, we illustrate how the integrative-functional account can guide the analysis of vulnerability in research within a pragmatist, evidence-based approach to research ethics. While ultimately there are concerns to be addressed in existing research ethics guidelines on vulnerability, the integrative-functional account can serve as an analytic tool to help researchers, research ethics boards, and other relevant actors fill in the gaps in the current landscape of research ethics governance., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the hope of future treatments to prevent or slow down the disease, there is a strong movement towards an ever-earlier detection of Alzheimer's disease (AD). In conjunction with scientific developments, this has prompted a reconceptualization of AD, as a slowly progressive pathological process with a long asymptomatic phase. New concepts such as 'preclinical' and 'prodromal' AD have been introduced, raising a number of conceptual and ethical questions. We evaluate whether these new concepts are theoretically defensible, in light of theories of health and disease, and whether they should be understood as disease or as an at-risk state. We introduce a pragmatic view on disease concepts and argue that an evaluation of the reconceptualization of AD should also take its aims and effects into account, and assess their ethical acceptability. The reconceptualization of AD is useful to coordinate research into preventive strategies, and may potentially benefit future patients. However, in the short term, early detection and labelling of 'preclinical AD' can potentially harm people. Since there is no treatment available and the predictive value is unclear, it may only create a group of 'patients-in-waiting' who may suffer from anxiety, uncertainty and stigmatization, but will never actually develop dementia. We conclude that only if the promise of preventive medication materializes, will the reconceptualization of AD turn out unequivocally to be for the better. Otherwise, the reconceptualization may do more harm than good., (© 2018 The Authors Bioethics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic review to map the various principles of justice that are linked to benefit sharing and analysed their meaning to the concept of benefit sharing. Five principles of justice (commutative, distributive, global, procedural, and compensatory) have been shown to be relevant in the nuances of benefit sharing in both global health research and bioprospecting. The review findings indicate that each of these principles of justice provides a different perspective for a different benefit sharing rationale. For example, commutative justice provides a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on fair exchange of benefits between research sponsors and communities. Distributive justice produces a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on improving the health needs of the vulnerable research communities. We have suggested that a good benefit sharing framework particularly in global health research would be more beneficial if it combines all the principles of justice in its formulation. Nonetheless, there is a need for empirical studies to examine the various principles of justice and their nuances in benefit sharing among stakeholders in global health research.