Next SectionThe principle of respect for autonomy has shaped much of the bioethics' discourse over the last 50 years, and is now most commonly used in the meaning of respecting autonomous choice. This is probably related to the influential concept of informed consent, which originated in research ethics and was soon also applied to the field of clinical medicine. But while available choices in medical research are well defined, this is rarely the case in healthcare. Consideration of ordinary medical practice (...) reveals that the focus on patient choice does not properly grasp the moral aspects involved in healthcare. Medical decisions are often portrayed as if doctors and patients in confidence confront specific decisions about examinations or treatment, yet the reality often involves many different participants, with decisions being made over time and space. Indeed, most of the decisions are never even presented to patients, as it would be unethical to suggest something that is not medically justifiable. The options patients do confront are somewhat arbitrarily constructed within the narrow framework of both what is deemed to be medically appropriate and how the healthcare system is organised practically. While the autonomy discourse has proven valuable, a failure to distinguish between the fields of medical research and clinical medicine has generated a focus on patient choice that does not reflect what is really at stake in healthcare settings. This is alarming, because the current discourse misrepresents medical practice in a way that actually contributes to bioethical self-delusion. (shrink)

Background/Objective The act of surgery involves harming vulnerable patients with the intent that the results will improve their health and, ultimately, help the patients. Such activities will inevitably entail moral decisions, yet the ethics of surgery has only recently developed as a field of medical ethics. Within this field, it is striking how few accounts there are of actions within the operating room. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate how much of the scientific publications on surgical ethics (...) focus on what take place inside the operating room and to explore the ethical issues included in the publications that focus on medical ethics in the operating room. Methods We conducted a systematic search of the Medline and Embase databases using a PICO model and the search terms “surgery”, “ethics” and “operating room”. Papers were included if they focused on doctors, entailed activities inside the operating room and contained some ethical analysis. Thematic synthesis was used for data extraction and analysis. Findings Fewer than 2% of the scientific publications on surgical ethics included activities inside the operating room. A total of 108 studies were included in the full-text analysis and reported according to the RESERVE guidelines. Eight content areas covered 2/3 of the included papers: DNR orders in the OR, overlapping surgery, donation of organs, broadcasting live surgery, video recordings in the OR, communication/teamwork, implementing new surgical technology, and denying blood to Jehovah’s Witness. Discussion/Conclusions This systematic review indicates that only a small fraction of scientific publications on the ethics of surgery focus on issues inside the operating room, accentuating the need for further research to close this gap. The ethical issues that repeatedly arose in the included papers included the meaning of patient autonomy inside the operating room, the consequences of technological advances in surgery, the balancing of legitimate interests, the dehumanising potential of the OR, and the strong notion of surgeon responsibility. (shrink)

While certain substantial moral dilemmas in health care have been given much attention, like abortion, euthanasia or gene testing, doctors rarely reflect on the moral implications of their daily clinical work. Yet, with its aim to help patients and relieve suffering, medicine is replete with moral decisions. In this qualitative study we analyse how doctors handle the moral aspects of everyday clinical practice. About one hundred consultations were observed, and interviews conducted with fifteen clinical doctors from different practices. It turned (...) out that the doctors’ approach to clinical cases followed a rather strict pattern across specialities, which implied transforming patients’ diverse concerns into specific medical questions through a process of ‘essentialising’: Doctors broke the patient’s story down, concretised the patient’s complaints and categorised the symptoms into a medical sense. Patients’ existential meanings were removed, and the focus placed on the patients’ functioning. By essentialising, doctors were able to handle a complex and ambiguous reality, and establish a medically relevant problem. However, the process involved a moral as well as a practical simplification. Overlooking existential meanings and focusing on purely functional aspects of patients was an integral part of clinical practice and not an individual flaw. The study thus questions the value of addressing doctors’ conscious moral evaluations. Yet doctors should be aware that their daily clinical work systematically emphasises beneficence at the expense of others—that might be more important to the patient. (shrink)