Search

In the medical practice in China, giving and taking "red envelopes" (monetary gifts) is a common phenomenon although few openly admit it. This paper, based on our empirical study including data collected from interviews and questionnaires with medical professionals and patients, attempts to explore why "red envelopes" have become a serious problem in the physician-patient relationship and how the situation can be improved. Previous studies show that scholars tend to correlate the spread of "red envelopes" in health care sector to the commercialization trend, the general erosion of traditional values, and the lowering of the moral level in the medical field. However, in this paper, the authors argue that medical professionals' choice of taking "red envelopes" is actually more a way to compensate for their problematic self-image and marred dignity in real practice. Medical professionals in China as a whole are in an embarrassing situation where the work pressure and income, and the sense of pride that used to be part of their profession are not comparable to each other. Under this circumstance, we believe that the effective way to deal with the "red envelopes" issue does not lie solely in introducing more stringent regulations or granting medical professionals higher payments, but rather in protecting and enhancing the professional dignity of all those working in healthcare. And on top of that, there must also be effort to cultivate a more favorable moral environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is nearly two decades now since the publication of Godfrey Tangwa's article, 'Bioethics: African Perspective', without a critical review. His article is important because sequel to its publication in Bioethics, the idea of 'African bioethics' started gaining some attention in the international bioethics literature. This paper breaks this relative silence by critically examining Tangwa's claim on the existence of African bioethics. Employing conceptual and critical methods, this paper argues that Tangwa's account of African bioethics has some conceptual, methodic and substantive difficulties, which altogether do not justify the idea of African bioethics, at least for now. Contra Tangwa, this article establishes that while African bioethics remains a future possibility, it is more cogent that current efforts in the name of 'African bioethics' be primarily re-intensified towards 'Healthcare ethics in Africa'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In China's healthcare sector, a popular and socio-culturally distinctive phenomenon known as guanxi jiuyi (medical guanxi), whereby patients draw on their guanxi (personal connections) with physicians when seeking healthcare, is thriving. Integrating anthropological investigation with normative inquiry, this paper examines medical guanxi through the lens of patient-physician trust and mistrust. The first-hand empirical data acquired - on the lived experiences and perspectives of both patients and physicians - is based on six months' fieldwork carried out in a county hospital in Guangdong, southern China, which included in-depth interviews with 20 patients and 20 medical professionals. Patients who emphasized the positive effects of guanxi on patient-physician trust believed that it facilitates access to experienced medical specialists, enhances clinical communication, and reduces the financial and medical risks of over diagnosis and overtreatment by physicians. At the same time, these findings reveal patients' strong sense of mistrust, not only towards individual health professionals but also to the medical profession and China's commercialized healthcare industry. While some health professionals in the study responded favourably to medical guanxi, most were opposed to it on the grounds that it undermines professional standards and equitable healthcare. We found that the practice of medical guanxi is not morally justifiable, chiefly because it reinforces the present high levels of patient-physician mistrust and erodes trust between patients and the medical profession as a whole. In China, both the medical profession and the state need to promote patient-physician trust based on medical professionalism and institutional norms, rather than on guanxi or individual relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on two years' ethnographic research on doctor-patient relations in urban China, this paper examines the causes of patients' mistrust of physicians. I identify the major factors at the societal, institutional, and interpersonal levels that lead to patients' mistrust of physicians. First, I set the context by describing the extent of mistrust at the societal level. Then, I investigate the institutional sources of mistrust. I argue that the financing mechanism of public hospitals and physicians' income structures are the most crucial factors in inducing patients' mistrust. Hospitals' heavy reliance on self-finance has basically caused public hospitals to run like private hospitals, resulting in blatant conflicts of interest between hospitals and patients. Related to this is physicians' reliance on bonuses and commissions as part of their regular incomes, which has inevitably resulted in overtreatment and, hence, mistrust from the patients. At the interpersonal level, I describe how individual physicians' attitudes toward and interaction with patients may also affect patients' sense of trust or mistrust in physicians. In conclusion, I discuss the ethical implications of the mistrust problem, and suggest changes at the institutional and interpersonal levels to mitigate the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trust is indispensable not only for interpersonal relationships and social life, but for good quality healthcare. As manifested in the increasing violence and tension in patient-physician relationships, China has been experiencing a widespread and profound crisis of patient-physician trust. And globally, the crisis of trust is an issue that every society, either developing or developed, has to face in one way or another. Yet, in spite of some pioneering works, the subject of patient-physician trust and mistrust - a crucial matter in healthcare especially because there are numerous ethical implications - has largely been marginalized in bioethics as a global discourse. Drawing lessons as well as inspirations from China, this paper demonstrates the necessity of a trust-oriented bioethics and presents some key theoretical, methodological and philosophical elements of such a bioethics. A trust-oriented bioethics moves beyond the current dominant bioethical paradigms through putting the subject of trust and mistrust in the central agenda of the field, learning from the social sciences, and reviving indigenous moral resources. In order for global bioethics to claim its relevance to the things that truly matter in social life and healthcare, trust should be as vital as such central norms like autonomy and justice and can serve as a potent theoretical framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the phenomenon of patient-physician mistrust in China, a qualitative study involving 107 physicians, nurses and health officials in Guangdong Province, southern China, was conducted through semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In this paper we report the key findings of the empirical study and argue for the essential role of medical professionalism in rebuilding patient-physician trust. Health professionals are trapped in a vicious circle of mistrust. Mistrust (particularly physicians' distrust of patients and their relatives) leads to increased levels of fear and self-protection by doctors which exacerbate difficulties in communication; in turn, this increases physician workloads, adding to a strong sense of injustice and victimization. These factors produce poorer healthcare outcomes and increasingly discontented and angry patients, escalate conflicts and disputes, and result in negative media coverage, all these ultimately contributing to even greater levels of mistrust. The vicious circle indicates not only the crisis of patient-physician relationship but the crisis of medicine as a profession and institution. Underlying the circle is the inherent conflict of interest in the healthcare system by which health professionals and hospitals have become profit-driven. This institutional conflict of interest seriously compromises the fundamental principle of medical professionalism-the primacy of patient welfare-as well as the traditional Chinese ideal of "medicine as the art of humanity". Patient trust can be restored through rectifying this institutional conflict of interest and promoting medical professionalism via a series of recommended practical measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focusing on the shared sense of victimization and disadvantage-ness by both patients and doctors/medical workers in cases of medical conflicts, this paper aims to examine the current patient-doctor tensions in the larger context of moral transformation in Chinese society since the 1980s. Although the decline of public trust in certain aspects is closely associated with the impact of commodification and commercialization of medical sector during the past two decades, other factors play important role as well. In the case of patient-doctor tension, mutual disrespect and mistrust also result from the ongoing process of individualization and the remaking of moral self, in which the individual demand for respect, dignity, and trust seem to have unexpectedly and ironically contributed to the rise of tensions and conflicts between patients and doctors as well as other medical workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calls are increasing for American health care to be organized as a learning health care system, defined by the Institute of Medicine as a health care system 'in which knowledge generation is so embedded into the core of the practice of medicine that it is a natural outgrowth and product of the healthcare delivery process and leads to continual improvement in care.' We applaud this conception, and in this paper, we put forward a new ethics framework for it. No such framework has previously been articulated. The goals of our framework are twofold: to support the transformation to a learning health care system and to help ensure that learning activities carried out within such a system are conducted in an ethically acceptable fashion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rise of quality improvement research and comparative effectiveness research in health care settings constitutes progress toward the goal of what the Institute of Medicine has called a 'learning healthcare system,' in which we are 'drawing research closer to clinical practice by building knowledge development and application into each stage of the healthcare delivery process.' As clinical research and clinical practice move closer to a deliberately integrated system, the distinction between the two is increasingly blurred, although the sharp distinction in U.S. regulations and research ethics literature remains in place. In the 1970s and for two decades thereafter, this distinction was helpful: for some forms of research, it sheds light on which activities require ethical oversight. Research that is closely integrated with health care-notably, health delivery research-was then uncommon, however. That is no longer the case, and regulations and research ethics need to change to accommodate the new landscape. In this paper, we argue that conceptual, moral, and empirical problems surround the received view that we can and should draw sharp distinctions between clinical research and clinical practice. We start with the history of the research-practice distinction in the reports of a U.S. national commission and in U.S. federal regulations, and then offer a critical assessment of five characterizations of research that have been used in policy documents and the scholarly literature to try to make a sharp distinction between research and practice. We challenge the clarity and the tenability of these characterizations as a way of distinguishing research from practice. We argue that the received view of the research-practice distinction leads to overprotection of the rights and interests of patients in some cases and to underprotection in others. We contend that a new ethical foundation needs to be developed that facilitates both care and research likely to benefit patients, and that provides oversight that, rather than being based on a distinction between research and practice, is commensurate with risk and burden in both realms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical ethics committees have recently been established in nearly all Norwegian hospital trusts. One important task for these committees is clinical ethics consultations. This qualitative study explores significant barriers confronting the ethics committees in providing such consultation services. The interviews with the committees indicate that there is a substantial need for clinical ethics support services and, in general, the committee members expressed a great deal of enthusiasm for the committee work. They also reported, however, that tendencies to evade moral disagreement, conflict, and ‘outsiders’ are common in the hospitals. Sometimes even the committees comply with some of these tendencies. The committees agree that there is a need to improve their routines and procedures, clarify the committees' profile and field of responsibility, to make the committees well-known, to secure adequate operating conditions, and to develop organizational integration and support. Various strategies to meet these challenges on a local, regional or national level are also explored in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a multidisciplinary meeting held to discuss ethical issues in medical research in the developing world. Many studies, including clinical trials, are conducted in developing countries with a high burden of disease. Conditions under which this research is conducted vary because of differences in culture, public health, political, legal and social contexts specific to these countries. Research practices, including standards of care for participants, may vary as a result. It is therefore not surprising that ethical issues emerge. This meeting sought to identify and discuss these issues from the perspectives of the many actors in such research, including community representatives, with a view to finding ethical and pragmatic solutions to these issues. Dialogue between these actors was also promoted, with a view to identifying the need to develop such dialogue in future. Drawing from the experiences of the speakers, the colloquium attempted to outline some answers to several key questions characterising the field today. Experiences related to epidemiologic research, vaccine trials, drug trials, diagnostic tests and to some fundamental ethical issues in health research. Speakers were from different countries, disciplines and professions. The meeting provided a forum for consultation and debate between different ethics actors. Both encouraging findings and challenges emerged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper proposes an optimal response-adaptive procedure for a general class of responses using a combination of two clinically relevant optimality criteria. We provide a thorough development for trials involving two treatments and sketch the possible extension for multiple treatments. Some related asymptotic results are worked out. We provide simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed procedure with some of the existing competitors. We illustrate our methodology on data from a real clinical trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Facilitating patient choice is an important element in respecting the autonomy of patients. Evidence-based medicine has the potential to contribute to this process by the provision of high quality research-based information, for use by patients and clinicians. In this paper, I analyse the processes of evidence-based medicine in order to identify the ways in which patient choice is affected by decisions made in the development and use of evidence-based guidelines. I argue that despite the potential contribution, the current methods and techniques of guideline production limit rather than facilitate patient choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mobile device use has become almost ubiquitous in daily life and therefore includes use by doctors in clinical settings. There has been little study as to the patterns of use and impact this has on doctors in the workplace and how negatively or positively it impacts at the point of care. Aim To explore how doctors use mobile devices in the clinical setting and understand drivers for use. Methods A mixed methods study was used with doctors in a paediatric and adult teaching hospital in 2013. A paper-based survey examined mobile device usage data by doctors in the clinical setting. Focus groups explored doctors' reasons for using or refraining from using mobile devices in the clinical setting, and their attitudes about others' use. Results The survey, completed by 109 doctors, showed that 91% owned a smartphone and 88% used their mobile devices frequently in the clinical setting. Trainees were more likely than consultants to use their mobile devices for learning and accessing information related to patient care, as well as for personal communication unrelated to work. Focus group data highlighted a range of factors that influenced doctors to use personal mobile devices in the clinical setting, including convenience for medical photography, and factors that limited use. Distraction in the clinical setting due to use of mobile devices was a key issue. Personal experience and confidence in using mobile devices affected their use, and was guided by role modelling and expectations within a medical team. Conclusion Doctors use mobile devices to enhance efficiency in the workplace. In the current environment, doctors are making their own decisions based on balancing the risks and benefits of using mobile devices in the clinical setting. There is a need for guidelines around acceptable and ethical use that is patient-centred and that respects patient privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]