Search

Background: Frontline nurses who care for patients with COVID-19 work in stressful environments, and many inevitably struggle with unanticipated ethical issues. Little is known about the unique, ethically sensitive issues that nurses faced when caring for patients with COVID-19. Aim: To better understand how frontline nurses who care for patients with COVID-19 experience ethical issues towards others and themselves. Methods: Systematic review of qualitative evidence carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on ethical literature (PRISMA-Ethics). The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, Philosopher's Index, and Scopus were queried to identify candidate articles. Articles appearing from March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022 were considered if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) Published qualitative and mixed method studies and (2) ethical issues experienced by nurses caring for patients with COVID-19. We appraised the quality of included studies, and data analysis was guided by QUAGOL principles. Findings: Twenty-six studies meeting our inclusion criteria for how nurses experience ethical issues were characterised by two key themes: (1) the moral character of nurses as a willingness to respond to the vulnerability of human beings and (2) ethical issues nurses acted as barriers sometimes, impeding them from responding to requests of vulnerable human beings for dignified care. Conclusion: Our review provides a deeper understanding of nurses' experiences of ethically sensitive issues, while also highlighting the critical need for adjustments to be made at organisational and societal levels. Ethical issues that emerged in situations where organisational and situational constraints impeded nurses' ethical responses to patients' appeals suggests that early practical support should be made available to resolve ethical issues recognised by nurses. Such support contributes to protecting and promoting not only the dignity of patients with COVID-19 but also of fellow humans in need during crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the common domains in health care in which the concept of vulnerability is used is end-of-life care, including euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS). Since different uses and implications of the notion have been recognised in the literature on EAS, this paper aims to analyse them and reflect on who is the most vulnerable in the context of EAS. A prior exploratory review of the literature has served as a starting point for the discussion. We concluded that vulnerability is a complex, multi-perspective and multi-layered concept, which implies the vulnerability of different stakeholders involved in EAS practices and vulnerability in different aspects of being human (i.e., physical, mental, moral, social and spiritual). A comprehensive understanding of the notion of vulnerability, which balances as well as complements the concept of autonomy, seems to be an indispensable element of the discourse on EAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the content and process of decision-making about palliative sedation for existential suffering (PS-ES) as perceived by Belgian palliative care physicians. Methods: This Belgian nationwide qualitative study follows a grounded theory approach. We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 palliative care physicians working in 19 Belgian hospital-based palliative care units and 4 stand-alone hospices. We analyzed the data using the Qualitative Analysis Guide of Leuven , and we followed the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Guidelines (COREQ). Results: Analysis of the data identified several criteria that physicians apply in their decision-making about PS-ES, namely, the importance of the patient's demand, PS-ES as a last resort option after all alternatives have been applied, the condition of unbearable suffering combined with other kinds of suffering, and the condition of being in a terminal stage. Regarding the process of decision-making itself, physicians refer to the need for multidisciplinary perspectives supported by an interpretative dialogue with the patient and all other stakeholders. The decision-making process involves a specific temporality and physicians' inner conviction about the need of PS-ES. Significance of results: Belgian palliative care physicians are not sure about the criteria regarding decision-making in PS-ES. To deal with complex existential suffering in end-of-life situations, they stress the importance of participation by all stakeholders (patient, relatives, palliative care team, other physicians, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, chaplains, etc.) in the decision-making process to prevent inadequate decisions being made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Irremediability is a key requirement for euthanasia and assisted suicide for psychiatric disorders (psychiatric EAS). Countries like the Netherlands and Belgium ask clinicians to assess irremediability in light of the patient's diagnosis and prognosis and 'according to current medical understanding'. Clarifying the relevance of a default objective standard for irremediability when applied to psychiatric EAS is crucial for solid policymaking. Yet so far, a thorough examination of this standard is lacking. Methods: Using treatment-resistant depression (TRD) as a test case, through a scoping review in PubMed, we analyzed the state-of-the-art evidence for whether clinicians can accurately predict individual long-term outcome and single out irremediable cases, by examining the following questions: (1) What is the definition of TRD; (2) What are group-level long-term outcomes of TRD; and (3) Can clinicians make accurate individual outcome predictions in TRD? Results: A uniform definition of TRD is lacking, with over 150 existing definitions, mostly focused on psychopharmacological research. Available yet limited studies about long-term outcomes indicate that a majority of patients with long-term TRD show significant improvement over time. Finally, evidence about individual predictions in TRD using precision medicine is growing, but methodological shortcomings and varying predictive accuracies pose important challenges for its implementation in clinical practice. Conclusion: Our findings support the claim that, as per available evidence, clinicians cannot accurately predict long-term chances of recovery in a particular patient with TRD. This means that the objective standard for irremediability cannot be met, with implications for policy and practice of psychiatric EAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]