Aim: To assess ethical issues in everyday clinical practice among physicians and nurses of the University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.Subjects and methods: We surveyed the entire population of internal medicine, oncology and intensive care specialists and associated nurses employed at the University Hospital Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia . An anonymous questionnaire was used to explore the type and frequency of ethical dilemmas, rank of their difficulty, access to and use of ethics support services, training in ethics and confidence about knowledge in (...) ethics. Physicians ranged in age from 27 to 61 years, and nurses , from 20 to 52.Results: The most frequent ethical dilemmas concerned uncertain or impaired decision-making capacity , limitation of treatment at the end of life and disagreements among family members . The most difficult dilemmas concerned euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and limitation of treatment at the end of life . Only a minority reported ever using any kind of ethics support services or being very confident about knowledge in ethics .Conclusions: Similar ethical difficulties are present in the clinical practice of both physicians and nurses, with important differences in access and use of ethics support services. A need for systematic ethics educational activities was identified. Inclusion of individual ethics consultants in Croatian healthcare ethics support services is strongly advised. (shrink)

There is great skepticism about the admittance of expert normative ethics testimony into evidence. However, a practical analysis of the way ethics testimony has been used in courts of law reveals that the skeptical position is itself based on assumptions that are controversial. We argue for an alternative way to understand such expert testimony. This alternative understanding is based on the practice of clinical ethics.

The DSM-IV, like its predecessors, will be a major influence on American psychiatry. As a consequence, continuing analysis of its assumptions is essential. Review of the manuals as well as conceptually-oriented literature on DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and DSM-IV reveals that the authors of these classifications have paid little attention to the explicit and implicit value commitments made by the classifications. The response to DSM criticisms and controversy has often been to incorporate more scientific diversity into the classification, instead of careful inquiry (...) and assessment of the principal values that drive the nosologic process. Implications for psychiatric science and future DSM classifications are discussed. (shrink)

Dr Agich takes up a previous difficult case related by Dr Kottow in an earlier issue of the Journal. He analyses the three ethical problems as presented in the case and offers his own opinion of it as well as his own conclusions with regard to the medical ethical aspects of it. Unlike Dr Kottow, Dr Agich's reading of the case indicates that the application of the principle of informed consent does not rule out ethical decisions for the physician, but (...) emphasizes the relevance of ethical analysis beyond the issue of informed consent. (shrink)

The ethical discussion of facial allograft transplantation for severe facial deformity, popularly known as facial transplantation, has been one sided and sensationalistic. It is based on film and fiction rather than science and clinical experience. Based on our experience in developing the first IRB approved protocol for FAT, we critically discuss the problems with this discussion, which overlooks the plight of individuals with severe facial deformities. We discuss why FAT for facial deformity is ethically and surgically justified despite its negative (...) portrayal in the media. (shrink)

This article is an attempt to clarify a confusion in the brain death literature between logical sufficiency/necessity and natural sufficiency/necessity. We focus on arguments that draw conclusions regarding empirical matters of fact from conceptual or ontological definitions. Specifically, we critically analyze arguments by Tom Tomlinson and Michael B. Green and Daniel Wikler. which, respectively, confuse logical and natural sufficiency and logical and natural necessity. Our own conclusion is that it is especially important in discussing the brain death issue to observe (...) the distinction between logical and natural sufficiency/necessity in a strict fashion. (shrink)