Search

This paper offers a general approach to ethics before considering its implications for the question of how to respond to religious preferences in healthcare, especially those of patients and healthcare workers. The first section outlines the two main components of the approach: (1) demoralizing, that is, seeking to avoid moral terminology in the discussion of reasons for action; (2) welfarism, the view that our ultimate reasons are grounded solely in the well‐being of individuals. Section 2 elucidates the notion of religious preferences and describes the history and importance of their protection by human rights legislation. The following section defends the 'Preference Principle', according to which there is a reason to satisfy any preference (in so far as that satisfaction advances well‐being). Section 4 discusses the implications of this principle for religious preferences in healthcare, again seeking to bring out the special social and political importance of respect, and respect for such preferences in particular. The paper ends with a brief description of how to approach such problems from the perspective of a demoralized welfarism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID‐19 pandemic catapulted Telehealth to the forefront of Emergency Medicine (EM) as an alternative way of assessing and managing patients. This challenged the traditional idea that EM can only be practised within brick‐and‐mortar EDs. Many Emergency Physicians may find the idea of practising Telehealth in Emergency Medicine (TEM) confronting, particularly in the absence of training and clear practice guidelines. The purpose of the present paper is to describe the current use of TEM in Australasia, and outline the advantages and barriers in adopting this practice domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Transitions of patient care responsibility occur frequently between physicians. Resultant discontinuities make it difficult for physicians to observe clinical outcomes. Little is known about what physicians do to overcome the practical challenges to learning these discontinuities create. This study explored physicians’ activities in practice as they sought follow‐up information about patients. Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, semi‐structured interviews with 18 internal medicine hospitalist and resident physicians at a single tertiary care academic medical center explored participants’ strategies when deliberately conducting follow‐up after they transitioned responsibility for patients to other physicians. Following open coding, the authors used activity theory (AT) to explore interactions among the social, cultural and material influences related to follow‐up. Results: The authors identified three themes related to follow‐up: (i) keeping lists to track patients, (ii) learning to create tracking systems and (iii) conducting follow‐up. Analysis of participants' follow‐up processes as an activity system highlighted key tensions in the system and participants’ work adaptations. Tension within functionality of electronic health records for keeping lists (tools) to find information about patients’ outcomes (object) resulted in using paper lists as workarounds. Tension between paper lists (tools) and protecting patients’ health information (rules) led to rule‐breaking or abandoning activities of locating information. Finding time to conduct desired follow‐up produced tension between this and other activity systems. Conclusion: In clinical environments characterised by discontinuity, lists of patients served as tools for guiding patient care follow‐up. The authors offer four recommendations to address the tensions identified through AT: (i) optimise electronic health record tracking systems to eliminate the need for paper lists; (ii) support physicians’ skill development in developing and maintaining tracking systems for follow‐up; (iii) dedicate time in physicians’ work schedules for conducting follow‐up; and (iv) engage physicians and patients in determining guidelines for longitudinal tracking that optimise physicians’ learning and respect patients’ privacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence‐based healthcare is the prevailing model for healthcare services. In Cochrane's seminal thinking, political context was included with the purpose of promoting healthcare equity. However, the subsequent evidence‐based healthcare models marginalized political context. In this paper, we argue that current models of evidence‐based healthcare fail to respond to emerging healthcare challenges. We claim that reintegration of political context is crucial to make healthcare sustainable. Global communities are anticipating ecological crises with immense repercussions for healthcare. This prospect illustrates that healthcare models failing to integrate political context also risk neglecting some of the most relevant healthcare issues of our time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Mercy" holds a well‐established place in the discourse on assisted death (AD), with mercy rhetoric used by both proponents and opponents of AD alike. In this paper, I interrogate the relationship between mercy, mercy killing and AD. Appeals to mercy introduce an ambiguity that carries implications for the enduring debate about healthcare professionals' participation in this controversial practice. The term "mercy killing" is used at different times to mean all of the following: killings that are acts of punitive leniency, killings motivated by pity, killings motivated by compassion, and acts of voluntary, involuntary and nonvoluntary euthanasia. I argue that killings that are acts of punitive leniency "track" a conceptually useful understanding of mercy and, by extension, mercy killing. However, if mercy is understood in this way, then "mercy killing" is a problematic way of characterizing physician‐AD. While reference to mercy killing has been weeded out of AD legislation over time, the same cannot be said of public discourse, where the debate about physicians' character—and the locus of power with respect to who gets to decide when a life can rightly be ended—continues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) do not tend to go very frequently to formal support services. The objective of this study is to identify barriers related to the accessibility, acceptability, equity, appropriateness and effectiveness of IPV services from the perspective of the professionals working in the IPV public services. Methods: A qualitative study was carried out in the Madrid region based on 13 semi‐structured interviews of young women who had survived IPV as well as 17 interviews with professionals. A thematic content analysis was performed, guided by the dimensions proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for friendly services for young people. Results: From the perspective of the young women and professionals, barriers were identified for all the dimensions of the WHO's friendly services for young people: accessibility: lack of information and support from the social setting, scarce dissemination of the services, economic cost, non‐adapted schedules, inadequate locations or lack of services in settings close to young people; acceptability: lack of protocols to guarantee confidentiality, lack of speed in the provision of services or their referral, unwelcoming environments or unsympathetic professional malpractice; equity: discriminatory professional attitudes towards groups with different social status and lack of protocols to ensure the care of these groups; appropriateness: unmet needs and lack of multidisciplinary teams; and effectiveness: shortage of time, resources, competent professionals, protocols and coordination. Conclusions: Strategies are needed to make the necessary changes to promote friendly services for the care of young people exposed to IPV. Additionally, it must be emphasized that resources are needed to raise awareness and disseminate IPV services, as well as to train professionals in this area. Patient or Public Contribution: This paper is based on professionals' perspectives of public IPV‐related services of different areas such as Psychology, Social Work, Nursing, Psychiatry, Social Education and young women exposed to IPV. They either work in the public administration at the local, regional or state level or in NGOs in Spain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: This paper reports on the findings from 6 focus groups conducted with Australian medical students. The focus groups sought students' perspectives on how the influence of commercial interests on medical practice and education could be managed. Method: We conducted 6 focus groups with medical students in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were recruited via student‐run medical society and faculty e‐mail lists. Forty‐nine students from 6 medical schools in New South Wales participated. The research team reflected on the extent to which students uncritically appealed to science in the abstract as a management solution for conflicts of interest. Data analysis was largely inductive, looking for uses of scientific terminology, EBM, and appeals to “science” in the management of COI and applied theoretical analyses of scientism. Results: The students in our study suggested that science and evidence‐based medicine, rather than ethics or professionalism, were the best tools to deal with undue influence and bias. This paper uses philosophy of science literature to critically examine these scientistic appeals to science and EBM as a means of managing the influence of pharmaceutical reps and commercial interests. We argue that a scientistic style of reasoning is reinforced through medical curricula and that students need to be made aware of the epistemological assumptions that underpin science, medicine, and EBM to address the ethical challenges associated with commercialised health care. Conclusion: More work is needed to structure medical curricula to reflect the complexities of practice and realities of science. However, curricula change alone will not sufficiently address issues associated with commercial interests in medicine. For real change to occur, there needs to be a broader social and professional debate about the ways in which medicine and industry interact, and structural changes that restrict or mitigate commercial influences in educational, research, and policy settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goals of learning health systems (LHS) and of AI in medicine overlap in many respects. Both require significant improvements in data sharing and IT infrastructure, aim to provide more personalized care for patients, and strive to break down traditional barriers between research and care. However, the defining features of LHS and AI diverge when it comes to the people involved in medicine, both patients and providers. LHS aim to enhance physician‐patient relationships while developments in AI emphasize a physicianless experience. LHS also encourage better coordination of specialists across the health system, but AI aims to replace many specialists with technology and algorithms. This paper argues that these points of conflict may require a reconsideration of the role of humans in medical decision making. Although it is currently unclear to what extent machines will replace humans in healthcare, the parallel development of LHS and AI raises important questions about the exact role for humans within AI‐enabled healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Whilst medicine is now an immense global industry clinicians often appear unclear as to its goals. This paper uses two philosophical steps to clarify our conceptualization of health and thus our goals for healthcare. Firstly, clinicians need to understand the significance of Hume's fact / value distinction in medicine, for medicine relies on both facts and values. Secondly clinicians need a better specified definition of 'health' to use as a goal for healthcare. Aristotle's model of human flourishing is used as the starting point for a new conceptualization of health. [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]

The article comments on the paper of Pascal Borry and colleagues on evidence-based medicine and its role in ethical decision making. They raised questions regarding the value of medical evidence, which questions the assumption that evidence-based medicine will necessarily improve medical care for the patient. They sometimes equate evidence with what K. Goodman means by information and treating it as a purely empirical/factual concept. They are also influenced by Goodman, and this influence would explain their intuition that evidence is also an evaluative concept.

The article presents a commentary on the paper "Being asked not to tell: nurses' experiences of caring for cancer patients not told their diagnosis," by S. Kendall. According to the author, the paper presents an under researched area in which culture, Chinese medicine, modernity and western-based ethics collide. He stresses that it begs the question of the complexity of communications in respect to the decision to tell or not the truth regarding the diagnosis of cancer for Chinese patients.

Managed care and organized systems of care are restructuring the delivery of care in the United States. As care is reorganized, physician practice styles, autonomy, and compensation are undergoing profound changes. To successfully integrate physicians into the new managed systems of care, their organizational relationship to and their compensation within these systems must be carefully considered. This paper first explores physician motivation as it is related to compensation. The paper then describes a variety of emerging organizational designs aimed at aligning the interests of physicians and hospitals. The author considers fully integrated, physician-hospital organizations with target income compensation arrangements to be most suitable to the collective success of professionals and organized systems of care. The paper concludes with a discussion of the many dilemmas and challenges posed by the intertwining of managed care, organized networks of care, and professional compensation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy 'at the bedside'? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions - about what we should do in any given situation - are embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case (metaphysics), what it is that we feel we can claim to know (epistemology), as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of genomic sequencing techniques is increasingly being incorporated into mainstream health care. However, there is a lack of agreement on how "incidental findings" (IFs) should be managed and a dearth of research on patient perspectives. Methods: In‐depth qualitative interviews were carried out with 31 patients undergoing genomic sequencing at a regional genetics service in England. Interviews explored decisions around IFs and were comparatively analyzed with published recommendations from the literature. Results: Thirteen participants opted to receive all IFs from their sequence, 12 accepted some and rejected others, while six participants refused all IFs. The key areas from the literature, (a) genotype/phenotype correlation, (b) seriousness of the condition, and (c) implications for biological relatives, were all significant; however, patients drew on a broader range of social and cultural information to make their decisions. Conclusion: This study highlights the range of costs and benefits for patients of receiving IFs from a genomic sequence. While largely positive views toward the dissemination of genomic data were reported, ambivalence surrounding genetic responsibility and its associated behaviors (e.g., duty to inform relatives) was reported by both IF decliners and accepters, suggesting a need to further explore patient perspectives on this highly complex topic area. Through in‐depth qualitative interviews with 31 genomic sequencing volunteers recruited from a large regional genetics service in England, this paper demonstrates the contrast in perspectives and attitudes toward genomic data held between genetics professionals and their patients. Decisions about whether to receive incidental findings should be interpreted in the context of wider social and ethical concerns in which reproduction and disability are viewed in very specific ways. For genomic sequencing patients, these societal and familial constraints may actually harm patient autonomy and reduce opportunities for justifiable incidental finding refusal. [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]

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]

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]

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]

Background: In July 2022, self‐collection became universally available as part of Australia's National Cervical Screening Program. This change aims to address screening inequities experienced among underscreened populations, including women of Indian descent. This study explored experiences of cervical screening, alongside the acceptability of self‐collection, among women of Indian descent living in Victoria, Australia. We also aimed to articulate the informational needs to promote self‐collection among this population. Methods: Five focus group discussions with 39 women living in Victoria were conducted in English (n = 3) and Punjabi (n = 2). Transcripts were thematically analysed, as informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results: Women were motivated by the choice to self‐collect, perceiving the ability to maintain modesty and greater autonomy as key enablers. Healthcare practitioners were seen as central in supporting patient‐centred models of care. Perceived barriers to self‐collection included concerns around its accuracy and women's confidence in collecting their own sample. Widespread dissemination of culturally tailored promotion strategies communicating concepts such as 'privacy' and 'accuracy' were suggested by women to promote self‐collection. Conclusion: Self‐collection was highly acceptable among women of Indian descent, particularly when assured of its accuracy, and sociocultural norms and previous screening experiences are considered. This study highlights the huge potential that self‐collection can play in increasing equity in Australia's cervical screening programme. Patient or Public Contribution: Members of the public were involved in focus group discussions. Findings were summarised and disseminated via a poster. A bicultural worker was involved in all stages of the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health services research is a field of study that brings together experts from a wide variety of academic disciplines. It also is a field that places a high priority on empirical analysis. Many of the questions posed by health services researchers involve the effects of treatments, patient and provider characteristics, and policy interventions on outcomes of interest. These are causal questions. Yet many health services researchers have been trained in disciplines that are reluctant to use the language of causality, and the approaches to causal questions are discipline specific, often with little overlap. How did this situation arise? This paper traces the roots of the division and some recent attempts to remedy the situation. Existing literature. Review of the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To explore the roles of Patient Advice and Liaison Services (PALS) in their interactions with service users. Context Every National Health Service health-care provider in England now has a PALS, which provides service users with information and help in resolving concerns and dissatisfactions with health care. Design Longitudinal qualitative study, 2002–4. This paper draws on data from 27 semi-structured interviews. Setting and participants PALS personnel working in six case study PALS in London. Findings PALS personnel adopt seven roles in order to support their clients in sorting out problems with health care: information provider; listener; messenger (passing on information from service users to staff); go-between (passing information forward and back); supporter (helping service users to present their own views); mediator (when two or more parties are in dispute); resource mobilizer (when the support of senior staff or other agencies is necessary to resolve a problem). Conclusions Though these are not new functions, PALS is a universal service which is better placed than front-line health-care staff to offer such support, and increases choice for service users looking for sources of information and advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informed consent is today of paramount importance to the dental and medical professions because of modern ethical issues and medico-legal consequences. This paper looks at the risk communication by medical and dental practitioners as the patient's right to know constitutes the basis of modern medical ethics. The paper discusses informed consent for both clinical practices as well as for clinical research study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although considerable attention has been given to ethical issues related to clinical research in developing countries, in particular related to HIV therapy, there has been limited focus on health systems research, despite its increasing importance in the light of current trends in development assistance. This paper examines ethical issues related to health systems research in‘post’-conflict situations, addressing both generic issues for developing countries and those issues specific to‘post’-conflict societies, citing examples from the author’s Cambodian experience. It argues that the destruction of health infrastructure results in a loss of structures and processes that would otherwise protect prospective research subjects who are part of vulnerable populations. It identifies the growth of health systems research as part of a trend towards sectoral and programmatic development assistance, the emergence of‘knowledge generation’ as a form of research linked to development, and the potential for conflict where multilateral and bilateral donors are both primary funders and users of health systems research. It also examines the position of the health system researcher in relation to the sponsors of this research, and the health system being analysed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been much debate among health care professionals over how physicians should be paid for their services. This paper addresses the topic through an economic and ethical analysis. It starts from the premise that fairness and cost effectiveness should be the goals of a good physician reimbursement system. Using the goals of fairness and cost effectiveness as measures, it examines the current market model. Finding that the current model provides neither fairness nor cost effectiveness, the paper compares the structure of the physician services market to the assumptions made by economists in the idealized market model. Two major imperfections are found in the former. These imperfections are an asymmetry in information between patient and physician, and the uneven and unpredictable distribution of health needs. These two imperfections are examined in light of the goals set out in the beginning of the paper. The paper finds that, given the imperfections, physician reimbursement as it currently exists is incompatible with the goals of fairness and cost effectiveness. In conclusion, several recommendations are made, most significantly a broadening of the interpretation of physician agency, i.e., physician as "agent," and the switch from a fee-for-service physician payment system to a salaried medical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

monaghan c. & begley a. (2004) International Journal of Older People Nursing in association with Journal of Clinical Nursing 13, 3a, 22–29 Dementia diagnosis and disclosure: a dilemma in practice Providing the individual with the correct information about their diagnosis can help maximize the patient's autonomy, however empirical evidence identifies inconsistencies in the practice of diagnosis disclosure in dementia. Within health care, ethical problems arise frequently and these present a challenge for health care professionals. This challenge can also give rise to conflict when professionals are torn between respecting autonomy, doing good and avoiding paternalism. The aim of this paper is to highlight the need for interprofessional collaboration when faced with ethical dilemmas such as diagnosis disclosure in the care of adults with dementia. The use of a dialogue and supplementary notes are used to explore crucial ethical points raised by health care professionals. The increasing rate of dementia and the need for patients to have access to timely and appropriate information about their diagnosis has prompted much debate about disclosing the diagnosis with the individual who has dementia. This paper may also be useful for educational purposes when used as a framework for discussion/debate in student nurse education. Ethical theories are of benefit in assisting the members of the multidisciplinary team to reach a morally defensible decision. Making ethical decisions in practice can cause the nurse concern. While there is no complete set of ‘rules’ that can provide an answer to each ethical dilemma, it is of immense value to nurses working within the multidisciplinary team to possess a sound knowledge of ethical positions in order to analyse the many complex situations that nurses encounter. The pivotal role of the health care professional is to work in collaboration and engage in sharing the diagnosis with the patient. It is hoped that this paper will stimulate and encourage further debate and study regarding the individual with dementia and diagnosis disclosure. Recommendations for practice, education, policy and research will also be highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Possibility is one of the most common modalities in reasoning and argumentation. Various kinds of modal concepts have been identified in philosophical and logical discussion of the metaphysics of modality. We focus here on the concept of clinical possibility. A critical analysis of what is intended as clinical possibility has not yet received sufficient examination, although the concept is extensively used in clinical reasoning. We present arguments to emphasize some desirable features associated with the concept of clinical possibility. We argue that almost all clinical possibilities are potentialities, that is, possibilities that may be actualized by effective, appropriate and feasible interventions. However, in some limited cases, even mere possibilities - which may or may not be actualized, since we do not have the required knowledge - may be involved in clinical reasoning, and we present some examples in this paper. We then introduce some basic views on the nature of possibility showing their validity and limitations when applied to the concept of clinical possibility. Lastly, we conjecture that clinical possibility is a normative modality that can be formalized in a multimodal system with epistemic and deontic logical operators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the perception of moral issues in nursing as presented in the literature and in themes of meetings, discussions and study days devoted to the subject. It offers an account of moral issues perceived by nursing students and qualified nurses as being relevant to discussions of moral aspects in nursing. The second part of this paper presents a closer examination of the problems related to professional truth telling and deception as an illustration of an 'everyday' moral issue in nursing and in health care generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles in the issue on topics including socio-political, cultural and healthcare context of patient-physician mistrust; and implications of patient–physician trust and mistrust in the Chinese context.

In their papers in this supplement, Ruth Faden and colleagues conclude that research ethics and regulation must change to accommodate a changed and changing health care environment. The reality, however, is that the widely understood and accepted ethical framework embedded in the regulatory requirements known as the Common Rule, and recent proposals to modify the Common Rule have become stalled, at least for the foreseeable future, if not permanently. Meaningful systemic modernization of the Common Rule is not likely to occur any time soon. All the same, modernization of the Common Rule is desperately needed. In the short term, the agencies responsible for implementing it must be willing to develop practical guidance for implementing the current regulatory requirements in a way that promotes clarity and understanding and allocates human and fiscal resources based on the level of risk to subjects. To this end, the Veterans Health Administration recently implemented policy to address the research-practice distinction-a distinction that is especially relevant to VHA's current challenges and that the authors of the 'ethical framework' articles have identified as particularly outmoded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the components of clinical care that work best is a cornerstone of improving health care. And yet, the more we improve the quality of quality improvement and move to continuous learning about clinical care more broadly, the more we find ourselves in a regulatory environment that makes evaluation more difficult, expensive, and, in some situations, impossible. In their paper on the ethical underpinnings of the distinction between research and treatment, Ruth Faden and colleagues raise important implications for a wide array of situations. These points give reason to rethink the definition of routine clinical operations to include evaluation of the processes and outcomes of care and dissemination of findings. We concur with the assertion by Faden and colleagues, and with previous work from The Hastings Center, that conducting continuous improvement activities such as these is an obligation of health systems and clinicians. We believe that rigorous, systematic evaluation should be considered part of normal, expected operations, rather than exceptional behavior that requires extraordinary regulatory control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical AID organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières receive several requests from individuals and international academic institutions to conduct research at their implementation sites in Africa. Do AID agencies have an ethical duty to comply with research requests? In this paper we respond to the views and constructed theories (albeit unfounded) of one such researcher, whose request to conduct research at one of our sites in the Democratic Republic of Congo was turned down. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The 1964 revision of the Hippocratic Oath addressed the disconnection in language and context between the classical doctrine and 20th century medicine. Now, 50 years later, we argue that any revision of the Oath must be responsive to the significant social, technical and political changes that have occurred in health care. The context for the Hippocratic Oath This paper examines the ways in which health care and the health professions have changed over the last half-century and describes a range of environmental and contextual features that expose the inadequacies of the 1964 Oath in the worlds of today and the future. We note the constancy of the doctor-patient dyad in contemporary ethical codes and consider from the perspective of patient safety those aspects of care that might fall short of the optimum if the focus on the doctor is retained. We ask whether there is any merit in maintaining a focus on the ethics or professionalism of doctors, or whether more of our attention should be directed towards the ethics of health care itself. Conclusions Patient safety is widely acknowledged as a major health issue. Being open about the interdependency of doctors, the complex socio-political nature of health care, and the inevitability of errors and adverse events need not challenge the authority of the doctor. Rather, openness about both the ways in which medicine has changed and the harms that doctors may (inadvertently) cause might afford medicine the opportunity to build a different relationship with patients (and with society more broadly), that recognises complexity, human fallibility and the uncertainty of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Hill–Burton Act attempted to create a safety net for underprivileged Americans with the idea of “charity care.” This paper explores the efficacy with which eligible hospitals accomplish this goal by calculating a benefit‐to‐cost ratio (BCR) relative to the socio‐demographic characteristics (population density, rate of poverty, and diversity) of the hospital's county. Eight states (CA, FL, GA, MN, MT, RI, TX, and WI) and 893 hospitals were included using data from 2007. A BCR of the dollars of charity care provided versus the dollars of federal tax exemption received was performed and sociodemographic characteristics were compared covariately to examine potential disparities. The study illustrates that for every dollar of exemption, the public received $0.11 of charity care. There is a statistically significant association between a higher percentage of diversity and poverty and a decrease in BCR; county level rates of poverty and diversity are negatively correlated with BCR and only 1 percent of hospitals have a cost‐effective BCR. The investment in the charity care system is providing a very low rate of return and improvements or alternatives on the national scale should be considered. [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]

Rehabilitation care is provided by interdisciplinary teams including physicians, nurses, therapists, social workers, psychologists, and others. When there is disagreement or miscommunication among team members, progress toward patient goals can be thwarted. This paper will discuss differing models by which teams function, and what happens when a nonphysician member of the team disagrees with the plan of care. An analysis of the ethical issues embedded in two cases will be presented, and suggestions for resolution of team disagreement will be recommended. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The ethics of care still appeals to many in spite of penetrating criticisms of it which have been presented over the past 15 years or so. This paper tries to offer an explanation for this, and then to critically engage with three versions of an ethics of care. The explanation consists firstly in the close affinities between nursing and care. The three versions identified below are by Gilligan (1982 ), a second by Tronto (1993 ), and a third by Gastmans (2006 ), see also Little (1998 ). Each version is described and then subjected to criticism. It is concluded that where the ethics of care is presented in a distinctive way, it is at its least plausible; where it is stated in more plausible forms, it is not sufficiently distinct from nor superior to at least one other common approach to nursing ethics, namely the much-maligned 'four principles' approach. What is added by this paper to what is already known: as the article tries to explain, in spite of its being subjected to sustained criticism the ethics of care retains its appeal to many scholars. The paper tries to explain why, partly by distinguishing three different versions of an ethics of care. It is also shown that all three versions are beset with problems the least serious of which is distinctiveness from other approaches to moral problems in health care. [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]

In 2004 Emanuel et al. published an influential account of exploitation in international research, which has become known as the ‘fair benefits account’. In this paper I argue that the thin definition of fairness presented by Emanuel et al, and subsequently endorsed by Gbadegesin and Wendler, does not provide a notion of fairness that is adequately robust to support a fair benefits account of exploitation. The authors present a procedural notion of fairness – the fair distribution of the benefits of research is to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the parties involved in each study. The fairness of the distribution of benefits is not assessed against an independent normative standard. Emanuel et al.'s account of fairness provides a framework for objecting only to transactions that occur without the fully informed consent of the weaker party. As a result, a debate about exploitation collapses into a debate about consent. This is problematic because, as the proponents of the fair benefits framework acknowledge, neither the trial participants' consent nor the host community's consent preclude exploitation. Attempts to stipulate normative standards of fairness to protect research subjects in developing countries have been controversial and divisive, and it is therefore understandable that bioethicists would be tempted to develop accounts of exploitation that are independent of such prescriptive principles. I conclude, however, that the utility of the fair benefits model of exploitation as a policy tool will ultimately depend on whether a substantive principle of fairness can be developed to underpin it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite broad agreement that the vulnerable have a claim to special protection, defining vulnerable persons or populations has proved more difficult than we would like. This is a theoretical as well as a practical problem, as it hinders both convincing justifications for this claim and the practical application of required protections. In this paper, I review consent-based, harm-based, and comprehensive definitions of vulnerability in healthcare and research with human subjects. Although current definitions are subject to critique, their underlying assumptions may be complementary. I propose that we should define vulnerability in research and healthcare as an identifiably increased likelihood of incurring additional or greater wrong. In order to identify the vulnerable, as well as the type of protection that they need, this definition requires that we start from the sorts of wrongs likely to occur and from identifiable increments in the likelihood, or to the likely degree, that these wrongs will occur. It is limited but appropriately so, as it only applies to special protection, not to any protection to which we have a valid claim. Using this definition would clarify that the normative force of claims for special protection does not rest with vulnerability itself, but with pre-existing claims when these are more likely to be denied. Such a clarification could help those who carry responsibility for the protection of vulnerable populations, such as Institutional Review Boards, to define the sort of protection required in a more targeted and effective manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are three lines of argument in defence of coercive treatment of patients with mental disorders: arguments regarding (1) societal interests to protect others, (2) the patients' own health interests, and (3) patient autonomy. In this paper, we analyse these arguments in relation to an idealized case, where a person with a mental disorder claims not to want medical treatment for religious reasons. We also discuss who should decide what in situations where patients with mental disorders deny treatment on seemingly rational grounds. We conclude that, in principle, coercive treatment cannot be defended for the sake of protecting others. While coercive actions can be acceptable in order to protect close family and others, medical treatment is not justified for such reasons but should be given only in the interest of patients. Coercive treatment may be required in order to promote the patient's health interests, but health interests have to waive if they go against the autonomous interests of the patient. We argue that non-autonomous patients can have reasons, rooted in their deeply-set values, to renounce compulsory institutional treatment, and that such reasons should be respected unless it can be assumed that their new predicaments have caused them to change their views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A number of philosophers have argued that alcoholics should receive lower priority for liver transplantations because they are morally responsible for their medical conditions. In this paper, I argue that this conclusion is false. Moral responsibility should not be used as a criterion for the allocation of medical resources. The reason I advance goes further than the technical problem of assessing moral responsibility. The deeper problem is that using moral responsibility as an allocation criterion undermines the functioning of medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a critique of Norman Daniels' and James Sabin's ‘Accountability for Reasonableness’ framework for making priority-setting decisions in health care in the face of widespread disagreement about values. Accountability for Reasonableness has been rapidly gaining worldwide acceptance, arguably to the point of becoming the dominant paradigm in the field of health policy. The framework attempts to set ground rules for a procedure that ensures that whatever decisions result will be fair, reasonable, and legitimate to the extent that even those who would be adversely affected will have reason to abide by them. I argue that the framework's four conditions are inadequate to this task. While we certainly require a fair and legitimate procedure for making priority setting decisions in health care despite a lack of consensus on relevant ethical and political issues, we must significantly revise the four conditions, and we cannot avoid facing our substantive disagreements head on if we hope to arrive at decisions that would (and should) be acceptable to everyone. I offer two suggestions. First, there is need for greater public involvement in all stages of deliberation. Second, we should give up on the idea that we can simplify the task of democratic deliberation by disallowing particular kinds or reasons and types of reasoning. Reasons of all kinds should be on the table, but then should be judged on their merits, such as consistency, plausibility and explanatory power, without any regard for their alleged sources of authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to describe and analyse the use of informed consent in clinical research, from the point of view of voluntary adult research participants, in order to develop and test an interview schedule for the evaluation of informed consent. Background. Informed consent is one of the central ethical research principles in healthcare research, but empirical research on this topic is still scarce. To evaluate and develop the ethical quality of scientific research, there is a need to explore the meaning and implications of informed consent for research participants. Method. The data were collected in 2004 by interviews using an interview schedule created for this study by the first author and discussed in a multidisciplinary group. The response rate was 81%. The sample consisted of 32 patients with a metabolic syndrome who were participants in a project evaluating the effects of betaine on cardiovascular risk factors. Findings. Participants stated that the key elements of informed consent are information, understanding and decision-making, and that competence is an essential factor in the reception and understanding of information and making an independent decision about participation. Our interview schedule was found to be useful in the investigation of informed consent. Conclusion. This study strengthened the perception that more extensive research about research participants is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the question what other healthcare professions should learn from nursing ethics, e.g. what should medical ethics learn from nursing ethics. I first analyse and reject all strong versions of the claim that nursing ethics is unique, because nursing is a unique practice. I then move to the question of whether the link between nursing ethics and nursing theory can be a model for other areas of healthcare ethics. I provide an analysis of the possibility of creating a theory of medicine and find that there cannot be a theory of medicine, and I argue briefly that this finding is also applicable to nursing. If there cannot be a theory of nursing, this entails that nursing ethics cannot be justifiably based on such a theory. In the final section, I then analyse the success of nursing ethics in resisting certain of the vices of Anglo-American analytic ethics, in particular the reductionism and individualism that characterizes much of healthcare ethics. I conclude that other healthcare ethics could usefully learn from this aspect of nursing ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]