By virtue of their professional ethics as healers and because of their specialized technical knowledge and clinical experience in assessing and reacting to real and potential emergencies, physicians have an obligation to offer an unsolicited medical opinion when the following conditions are met: (1) physicians assess a high probability of potentially serious disease in a stranger because of information presented to them, either in the form of a communication or physical signs; (2) physicians judge this information to (...) be latent (not readily interpretable as potentially dangerous by the stranger) and likely to remain latent prior to the onset of symptoms; (3) the physicians possess the medical knowledge appropriate to the professional interpretation of this information. Although not a morally risk-free endeavor (invasion of privacy and the potential creation of a ‘sick role’ whether or not the diagnosis is correct), offering an unsolicited medical opinion under the above conditions can prevent suffering and save lives in unsuspecting strangers. Keywords: bystander, professional duty, patient-physician relationship, privacy, altruism * I would like to dedicate this essay to my father, Martyn C. Ratzan, M.D., who taught me never to listen to whispers too close to the window. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Doctors occasionally make diagnoses in strangers outside of formal medical settings by using the medical skill of visual inspection, such as noticing signs of melanoma or the symptoms of hyperthyroidism. This may cause considerable moral unease and doubts on the side of the diagnosing physician. Such encounters force physicians to consider whether or not to intervene by introducing themselves to the stranger and offering an unsolicited medical opinion despite the absence of a formal doctor-patient relationship. (...) A small body of literature has addressed the topic of the unsolicited medical opinion, often with a primary focus on practical advice. This article seeks to establish an ethical-theoretical basis for physicians' ethical obligation to offer an unsolicited medical opinion when they make a diagnosis by visual inspection in a stranger outside of the formal medical context. Using a utilitarian approach, it is argued that, if it is in the physicians' power to prevent a possible loss of well-being, without thereby sacrificing anything of equal value, physicians have an ethical obligation to intervene. (shrink)

What is the relationship between gender and sexuality? Some theories claim that they are two distinct systems of stratification, whereas others claim that they are bound tightly together. By looking at medical opinion on homosexuality in men and women from 1900 to 1950, this article examines the relationship between sexuality and gender. Interpretive analysis of articles on homosexuality appearing in medical journals during this time suggests that the relationship between sexuality and gender varies in historically and socially (...) specific ways. (shrink)

The author considers the notion that the doctor is the sole arbiter of what happens to a defective neonate; how this is a logical confusion of scientific assessment with value judgment. The utilitarian concept found in a democracy is taken to be the superior source of ethics which ought to guide doctors. Finally, the logical conclusion is claimed to be that legislation alone will effectively enunciate society's standards.

In Nigeria, medical education remains focused on the traditional clinical and basic medical science components, leaving students to develop moral attitudes passively through observation and intuition. In order to ascertain the adequacy of this method of moral formations, we studied the opinions of medical students in a Nigerian university towards medical ethics training. Self administered semi-structured questionnaires were completed by final year medical students of the College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. There were 82 (...) (64.1%) male and 44 (34.4%) female respondents. The median age was 26 years. Most students (80.5%) responded that they did not receive enough training in medical ethics. The ethics instructions they received did not sufficiently prepare them for the ethical challenges they came across as medical students. Though inadequate, the few hours of lecture and discussion on human values and professional etiquette which they received positively influenced their moral reasoning. They identified end-of-life issues, dealing with financial issues and handling socio-cultural beliefs of patients and relations as some challenges that medical doctors are ill-prepared for by their current training. Most, 85.9% believed that formal medical ethics education would be worthwhile as it would enhance the making of complete and better doctors. They recommended incorporating bioethics as a course in the medical school curriculum. Nigerian medical students encounter ethical challenges for which they have not been adequately trained to resolve. They recommended formal medical ethics training in their curriculum and a uniform bioethics programme in the country. (shrink)

Background Safeguarding the right to die according to the principles of autonomy and freedom of each person has become more important in the last decade, therefore increasing regulation of Euthanasia and Medically Assisted Suicide (MAS). Aims To learn the opinions that the nurses of the autonomous region of Madrid have regarding Euthanasia and Medically Assisted Suicide. Research design Cross-sectional descriptive study. Participants and research context All registered nurses in Madrid. The study was done by means of a self-completed anonymous questionnaire. (...) The variables studied were social-demographic, giving opinions about Euthanasia and MAS. Ethical considerations Each participant was assured maximum confidentiality and anonymity, ensuring the ethical principles set out in the Declaration of Helsinki, as well as in the Organic Law 3/2018, on Personal Data Protection and guarantee of digital rights. Findings A total of 489 nurses answered the questionnaire. In total, 75.7% of the nurses confirmed that Euthanasia should be regulated in Spain. 66.3% indicated that information on Euthanasia should be provided jointly by doctors and nurses, and 42.3% considered that it could be applied by both medical and nursing professionals. A total of 87.2% advocated the participation of nurses in health policy, influencing the drafting of the law. In the face of possible regulation, 35% would request Conscientious Objection, being closely related to their religious beliefs. Discussion Different authors point out that nurses’ perceptions and attitudes towards Euthanasia are conditioned by different factors, such as religion, gender, poor palliative care, legality and the patient's right to die. Conclusion Nurses are positioned in favour of the regulation and practice of Euthanasia and MAS, depending on their age, years of experience, training, model of care and especially religious beliefs. (shrink)

The pharmaceutical industry, in its marketing efforts, often turns to “key opinion leaders” or “KOLs” to disseminate scientific information. Drawing on the author's fieldwork, this article documents and examines the use of KOLs in pharmaceutical companies’ marketing efforts. Partly due to the use of KOLs, a small number of companies with well-defined and narrow interests have inordinate influence over how medical knowledge is produced, circulated, and consumed. The issue here, as in many other cases of institutional corruption, is (...) that a few actors have accumulated the power to shape the information on which many others base their decisions. Efforts to address this corruption should focus on correcting large imbalances in the current political economy of medical knowledge. A sequestration of pharmaceutical research and development on one hand from pharmaceutical marketing on the other, though difficult to achieve, would address this and many other problems. (shrink)

The aim of this study was to determine the opinions of private medical practitioners in Bloemfontein, South Africa, regarding euthanasia of terminally ill patients. This descriptive study was performed amongst a simple random sample of 100 of 230 private medical practitioners in Bloemfontein. Information was obtained through anonymous self-administered questionnaires. Written informed consent was obtained. 68 of the doctors selected completed the questionnaire. Only three refused participation because they were opposed to euthanasia. Respondents were mainly male (74.2%), married (...) (91.9%) and Afrikaans-speaking (91.9%). More were specialists (53.2%) than general practitioners (46.8%). A smaller percentage (35.5%) would never consider euthanasia for themselves compared to for their patients (46.8%). The decision should be made by the patient (50%), the patient’s doctor with two colleagues (46.8%), close family (45.2%) or a special committee of specialists in ethics and medicine (37.1%). The majority (46.9%) indicated that euthanasia should be performed by an independent doctor trained in euthanasia, followed by the patient’s doctor (30.7%). Notification should mainly be given to a special committee (49.9%). Only 9.8% felt that no notification was necessary. There was strong opposition to prescribing of medication to let the patient die. Withdrawal of essential medical treatment to speed up death was the most acceptable method. Although the responding group was fairly homogeneous, responses varied widely, indicating the complexity of opinions. (shrink)

There are serious concerns about the commercialization of healthcare and adoption of the business approach in medicine. As market dynamics endanger established professional values, healthcare workers face more complicated ethical dilemmas in their daily practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the willingness of medical students to accept the assertions of commercialized healthcare and the factors affecting their level of agreement, factors which could influence their moral stance when market demands conflict with professional values. A cross-sectional study (...) was conducted in three medical schools in Turkey. The study population consisted of first-, third-, and sixth-year students, and 1,781 students participated in total. Students were asked to state if they agreed with the assertions of commercialized healthcare. Of all students, 87.2 per cent agreed with at least one of the assertions, and one-fifth of them agreed with more than half of the assertions. First-year students significantly agreed more with some assertions than third- and sixth-year students. Being female, having mid-level family income, choosing medicine due to idealistic reasons, and being in the third or sixth years of medical study increased the probability of disagreement. Also, studying in a medical school that included integrated lectures on health policies, rights related to health, and health inequities, along with early field visits, increased the probability of disagreement. This study suggests that agreement with the assertions of commercialized healthcare might be prevalent among students at a considerable level. We argue that this level of agreement is not compatible with best practice in professional ethics and indicates the need for an educational intervention in order to have physicians who give priority to patients’ best interests in the face of market demands. (shrink)

Conscientious objection to participating in induced abortion is not present in the Finnish health care system or legislation unlike in many other European countries.

Empirical studies on people's moral attitudes regarding ethically challenging topics contribute greatly to research in medical ethics. However, it is not always clear in which ways this research adds to medical ethics as a normative discipline. In this article, we aim to provide a systematic account of the different ways in which attitudinal research can be used for normative reflection. In the first part, we discuss whether ethical judgements can be based on empirical work alone and we develop (...) a sceptical position regarding this point, taking into account theoretical, methodological and pragmatic considerations. As empirical data should not be taken as a direct source for normative justification, we then delineate different ways in which attitudes research can be combined with theoretical accounts of normative justification in the second part of the article. Firstly, the combination of attitudes research with normative-ethical theories is analysed with respect to three different aspects: The extent of empirical data which is needed, the question of which kind of data is required and the ways in which the empirical data are processed within the framework of an ethical theory. Secondly, two further functions of attitudes research are displayed which lie outside the traditional focus of ethical theories: the exploratory function of detecting and characterising new ethical problems, and the field of ‘moral pragmatics’. The article concludes with a methodological outlook and suggestions for the concrete practice of attitudinal research in medical ethics. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic generated overflow of healthcare systems in several countries. As the ethical debates focused on prioritisation for access to care with scarce medical resources, numerous recommendations were created. Late 2021, the emergence of the Omicron variant whose transmissibility was identified but whose vaccine sensitivity was still unknown, reactivated debates. Fears of the need to prioritise patients arose, particularly in France. Especially, a debate began about the role of vaccination status in the prioritisation strategy. The Ethics Committee (EC) (...) of the University Hospital of Bordeaux (UHB), France, identified prioritisation criteria in the literature (some recommended, such as being a healthcare worker (HCW) or having consented to research, while others were discouraged, such as age with a threshold effect or vaccination status). A survey was sent within the institution in January 2022 to explore frontline physicians' adherence to these prioritisation criteria. The decision making conditions were also surveyed. In 15 days, 78/165 (47.3%) frontline physicians responded, and more widely 1286/12946 (9.9%) professionals. A majority of frontline physicians were opposed to prioritising HCWs (54/75, 72%) and even more opposed to participating in research (69/76, 89.6%). Conversely, the results were very balanced for non-recommended criteria (respectively 39/77, 50.7% and 34/69 49.3% in favour for age with a threshold effect and for vaccination status). Decisions were considered to be multi-professional and multi-disciplinary for 65/76, 85.5% and 53/77, 68.8% of frontline physicians. Responders expressed opposition to extending decision-making to representatives of patients, civil society or HCWs not involved in care. Prioritisation recommendations in case of scarce medical resources were not necessarily approved by the frontline physicians, or by the other HCWs. This questions the way ethical recommendations should be communicated and discussed at a local scale, but it also questions these recommendations themselves. The article also reports the experience of seeking HCWs opinions on a sensitive ethical debate in a period of crisis. (shrink)

(2004). From an Exercise in Professional Etiquette to Society's Wish List? Review of American Medical Association, Code of Medical Ethics: Current Opinions with Annotations. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 69-70. doi: 10.1162/152651604323097907.

How can we as health-care providers, along with those committed to advocating for health-care equity, draw on our work to tell stories that can make a difference in people’s lives? As a pediatrician and television writer, I’m in the unique position to promote public health through dramatic television stories that are grounded in data. By telling emotionally compelling stories that are informed by peer-reviewed research, we can improve public health, particularly in these COVID-19 times, when conspiracies and anecdotes swirl around (...) and crowd out the science.Today, all of us are fixated on what it means to be infectious, derived from the Latin inficere, “to spoil or stain.” The word itself is emotionally resonant... (shrink)

The basis for ‘sound’ medical opinion has moved from clinical opinion to evidence based research. This article will comment on the basis on which evidence in clinical medicine is collected and, indeed, what actually constitutes evidence. It is suggested that the definition of guidelines arising from evidence-based medicine may lead to false conclusion and, as noted by Sir Douglas Black, whilst ‘guidelines can of course be helpful in clear-cut situations; [but] these are the minority in actual practice’.

Relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) often create conflicts of interest, not least because of the various benefits received by physicians. Many countries attempt to control pharmaceutical industry marketing strategies through legal regulation, and this is true in Poland where efforts are underway to eliminate any practices that might be considered corrupt in medicine. The present research considered Polish medical students’ opinions about domestic laws restricting doctors’ acceptance of expensive gifts from the industry, the idea of compulsory (...) transparency, and the possibility of introducing a Polish Sunshine Law. A qualitative, focus group-based, interview method was used. Data were gathered from nine focus groups involving 92 medical students from three universities located in major Polish cities. The article presents a classification of opposing student views with regard to the consequences of introducing different legal solutions; this should be useful for policy makers deliberating on how to optimally regulate pharmaceutical marketing. The study’s results are discussed in the context of the public bioethical debate in Poland. (shrink)

Background: Brain-dead humans retain many of the physiologic functions of living humans, but they are legally dead and cannot be physically harmed by participation in research. Stakeholder opinions...

Background Undergraduate medical education is beginning to concern itself with educating students about professional attributes as well as about clinical knowledge and skills. Defining these characteristics, and in particular seeking the help of the students themselves to define them, can be a useful starting point when considering how to incorporate aspects of professional behaviour into the medical curricula. Method This study explores the views of first-year medical students at Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine in the 2007–8 academic (...) year. The students were asked the open-ended question: ‘What, in your opinion, are the attributes a good physician should have?’ Four topics were defined by researchers based on the undergraduate and graduate education projects. The attributes expressed by the students were evaluated by the researchers according to these topics and compared with the topics covered in the undergraduate and graduate education projects. Results A total of 127 students responded, and between them suggested 756 attributes. The majority of these attributes (54.6%) were concerned with interpersonal relations and communication, whereas the category representing the fewest attributes (12.3%) was that involving scientific knowledge and medical practice. In general, students' perception corresponded to the concept of the ‘competent physician’ as described in the professionalism projects, but attributes reflecting their world-view were also expressed. Conclusion Experience suggests that the active participation of students in determining which attributes are necessary for a good physician is a positive way of ensuring they embrace the importance of such qualities and attributes in themselves. (shrink)

Background Massively parallel sequencing techniques, such as whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), may reveal unsolicited findings (UFs) unrelated to the diagnostic aim. Such techniques are frequently used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric cases of developmental delay (DD). Yet policy guidelines for informed consent and return of UFs are not well equipped to address specific moral challenges that may arise in these children’s situations. Discussion In previous empirical studies conducted by our research group, we found that (...) it is sometimes uncertain how children with a DD will develop and whether they could come to possess capacities for autonomous decision-making in the future. Parents sometimes felt this brought them into a Catch-22 like situation when confronted with choices about UFs before undergoing WES in trio-analysis (both the parents’ and child’s DNA are sequenced). An important reason for choosing to consent to WES was to gain more insight into how their child might develop. However, to make responsible choices about receiving or declining knowledge of UFs, some idea of their child’s future development of autonomous capacities is needed. This undesirable Catch-22 situation was created by the specific policy configuration in which parents were required to make choices about UFs before being sequencing (trio-analysis). We argue that this finding is relevant for reconfiguring current policies for return of UFs for WES/WGS and propose guidelines that encompass two features. First, the informed consent process ought to be staged. Second, differing guidelines are required for withholding/disclosing a UF in cases of DD appropriate to the level of confidence there is about the child’s future developmental of autonomous capacities. Conclusion When combined with a dynamic consent procedure, these two features of our guidelines could help overcome significant moral challenges that present themselves in the situations of children undergoing genomic sequencing for clarifying a DD. (shrink)

The work related to medical ethics written by Polish authors are reviewed and some topics concerning teaching and various other activities in this field are presented. The attention is centered on the opinions and attitudes concerning the essence of medical profession and the personal model of the physician, doctor-patient relationship (including duties of the doctor), medical research on humans, abortion and other problems. The role of medico-ethical tradition in Poland is described. Main trends in polish ethical thought (...) in relation to medicine are taken into consideration. General aspects of medical ethics in present-day Poland are tentatively characterized. (shrink)

Medical students will face ethical issues throughout their lives as doctors. The present study aims to investigate medical students’ opinions on controversial ethical issues and factors associated with these opinions.

The English cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans involved a conflict between the desires of their parents to preserve their children’s lives and judgments of their medical teams in pursuit of clinically appropriate therapy. The treatment the children required was clearly extraordinary, including a wide array of advanced life-sustaining technological support. The cases exemplify a clash of worldviews rooted in different philosophies of life and medical care. The article highlights the differing perspectives on parental authority in (...) class='Hi'>medical care in England, Canada, and the United States. Furthermore, it proposes a solution that accommodates for both reasonable parental desires and professional medical opinion. This is achieved by looking at concepts of extraordinary therapy, best interest, reasonable parenthood and medical objections. (shrink)

Medical doctors are commissioned by the migration authorities and/or border police to assist in decision making about asylum seeker’s requests for residency permits in Sweden. They are asked to: (i) assess the formal written medical opinions made by physicians in support of asylum or humanitarian narratives in the asylum process and/or (ii) to make medical assessments of persons considered for deportation. This arrangement raises questions such as: How is the decision making process carried out? How is (...) class='Hi'>medical knowledge used, and who ought to make decisions about medical evidence in the asylum process? Does this approach effect public health overall? There are longstanding concerns that medical assessments to certify whether a person is fit for transport or not, can have a direct, negative impact on persons in need of care and protection. A separate structure of doctors commissioned by the immigration authority seems to raise professional tensions, politicizes medical constructs and contributes to moral disengagement. Empirical data are used to illustrate this discussion with reference to medical issues, medical ethics, public health and legal discourses. I then reflect on key value conflicts using public health ethics theory and conclude with implications for public health ethic theory, policy and practice. (shrink)

Background: Today in vitro fertilisation is a widespread and important technique of reproductive medicine. When the technique was first used, it was considered ethically controversial. This is the first study conducted of adult IVF-offspring in order to learn about their ethical opinions and personal attitudes towards this medical technology.Methods: We recruited the participants from the first cases of in vitro fertilisation in Germany at the Gynaecological Clinic of the University Hospital Erlangen. Our qualitative interview study consisted of in-depth, face-to-face (...) interviews with 16 adults who had been conceived by IVF. Our data was analysed with methods of Grounded Theory.Results: For these adults, the most important factor influencing their personal attitudes towards IVF was the knowledge that they were deeply wanted children. The artificiality of their conception seemed irrelevant for their ethical opinion. All participants mentioned that it was important for them to be informed about the circumstances of their conception by their parents.Conclusions: IVF seems to be a medical technique which, although it affects intimate aspects of human existence, can be integrated into the lives of the affected persons without any great difficulties. The findings suggest that parents should inform their children about their fertilisation at an early age and as part of a process over time, not only on a single occasion. Physicians should advise IVF-parents accordingly. (shrink)

Continuous sedation until death (CSD), the act of reducing or removing the consciousness of an incurably ill patient until death, often provokes medical–ethical discussions in the opinion sections of medical and nursing journals. Some argue that CSD is morally equivalent to physician-assisted death (PAD), that it is a form of “slow euthanasia.” A qualitative thematic content analysis of opinion pieces was conducted to describe and classify arguments that support or reject a moral difference between CSD and (...) PAD. Arguments pro and contra a moral difference refer basically to the same ambiguous themes, namely intention, proportionality, withholding artificial nutrition and hydration, and removing consciousness. This demonstrates that the debate is first and foremost a semantic rather than a factual dispute, focusing on the normative framework of CSD. Given the prevalent ambiguity, the debate on CSD appears to be a classical symbolic struggle for moral authority. (shrink)

In discussions of medical decision making as it applies to people with disabilities, a major obstacle stands in the way: the perceptions and values of disabled people and of many nondisabled people, regarding virtually the whole range of current health and medical-ethical issues, seem frequently to conflict with one another. This divergence in part grows out of the sense, common among people with disabilities, that their interactions with “the helping professions,” medical and social service professionals, are adversarial. (...) But those differences of opinion also stem more basically from a clash of fundamental values.This paper addresses, in historical perspective, the ways in which the status of persons with disabilities as a stigmatized minority group affects medical decision making. It also examines the efforts of disability rights activists to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities in current medical culture. Finally, it raises questions about how the rights of people with disabilities will fare as new care standards are developed and implemented. (shrink)

Little research has explored the perceptions of military medical providers in the deployed environment and how their perceptions may change over time across an extended military conflict. To our knowledge, no studies have examined military medical providers’ opinions on readiness for their roles in the post-9/11 contingency operations. What has been published indicates that, during the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom, military medical providers often deployed with little notice and minimal formal training. The present report examines data (...) obtained from multiple cohorts of military medical providers (N = 321) deployed to Iraq between 2005 and 2009. Despite varying degrees of support from the U.S. public, our findings indicate that U.S. Air Force military medical providers’ support for the people of Iraq, their belief in the mission, and their ability to influence change did not vary with time. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend a version of the medical model of disability, which defines disability as an enduring biological dysfunction that causes its bearer a significant degree of impairment. We should accept the medical model, I argue, because it succeeds in capturing our judgments about what conditions do and do not qualify as disabilities, because it offers a compelling explanation for what makes a condition count as a disability, and because it justifies why the federal government should (...) spend hundreds of billions of dollars, annually, on aid and accommodations for disabled people. After responding to a pair of objections Elizabeth Barnes has raised against the medical model, I contrast it with Guy Kahane and Julian Savulescu's welfarist account of disability, and with Barnes's own mere-difference view. Both of these accounts face serious challenges, although elements of Barnes's view can—and, in my opinion, should—be adopted by proponents of the medical model. (shrink)

BackgroundThe intensive care unit entails working as a team in rescuing patients from life-threatening conditions. The care being given by the team could also be done by nurses and other health professionals through the coordinated use of all medical practices.ObjectiveTo determine the opinion of nurses on the ethical problems they experienced while working as a team in the intensive care units of a university hospital.MethodThe descriptive research was conducted on nurses working in intensive care units (n = 96). (...) A 56-item data collection form consisting of two parts developed by the researchers was used. Frequency (percent) and median were evaluated, and statistical calculations were used for group comparisons.ResultsOut of the 82 (85.4%) nurses who participated in the study, 65 (82.3%) were university graduates. About 52 (66.7%) of the participants were female with a mean age of 28.12 ± 5.84; 26 (31.6%) had intensive care certification, and 54 (65.1%) had ethical training. The internal intensive care unit nurses were less satisfied with their jobs, able to use tools, said that they had the right to refuse the patient compared to the surgical intensive care unit nurses. Discussion and conclusions: It is a positive situation for the participants to score low with ethical problems based on suggestion as the probability of meeting with their teammates. However, it is important that the problems that affect the motivation of the nurses are different according to the intensive care unit and the employees. (shrink)

The law of informed consent to medical treatment has recently been extensively overhauled in England. The 2015 Montgomery judgment has done away with the long-held position that the information to be disclosed by doctors when obtaining valid consent from patients should be determined on the basis of what a reasonable body of medical opinion agree ought to be disclosed in the circumstances. The UK Supreme Court concluded that the information that is material to a patient’s decision should (...) instead be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person’ and the ‘particular patient’. The rationale outlined in Montgomery for this new test of materiality, and academic comment on the ruling’s significance, has focused on the central ethical importance that the law now accords to respect for patient autonomy in the process of obtaining consent from patients. In this paper, we dispute the claim that the new test of materiality articulated in Montgomery equates with respect for autonomy being given primacy in re-shaping the development of the law in this area. We also defend this position, arguing that our revised interpretation of Montgomery’s significance does not equate with a failure by the courts to give due legal consideration to what is owed to patients as autonomous decision-makers in the consent process. Instead, Montgomery correctly implies that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to a number of relevant ethical considerations in framing decisions about consent to treatment, which include subtle interpretations of the values of autonomy and well-being. Doctors should give appropriate consideration to how these values are fleshed out and balanced in context in order to specify precisely what information ought to be disclosed to a patient as a requirement of obtaining consent, and as a core component of shared decision-making within medical encounters more generally. (shrink)

Virtue ethics has long provided fruitful resources for the study of issues in medical ethics. In particular, study of the moral virtues of the good doctor—like kindness, fairness and good judgement—have provided insights into the nature of medical professionalism and the ethical demands on the medical practitioner as a moral person. Today, a substantial literature exists exploring the virtues in medical practice and many commentators advocate an emphasis on the inculcation of the virtues of good (...) class='Hi'>medical practice in medical education and throughout the medical career. However, until very recently, no empirical studies have attempted to investigate which virtues, in particular, medical doctors and medical students tend to have or not to have, nor how these virtues influence how they think about or practise medicine. The question of what virtuous medical practice is, is vast and, as we have written elsewhere, the question of how to study doctors’ moral character is fraught with difficulty. In this paper, we report the results of a first-of-a-kind study that attempted to explore these issues at three medical schools in the United Kingdom. We identify which character traits are important in the good doctor in the opinion of medical students and doctors and identify which virtues they say of themselves they possess and do not possess. Moreover, we identify how thinking about the virtues contributes to doctors’ and medical students’ thinking about common moral dilemmas in medicine. In ending, we remark on the implications for medical education. (shrink)

Public opinion surveys and polls have a long history as tools for the reportage of public sentiment. Born in the “straw polls” of nineteenth century politics, their use expanded in the last century to include a range of commercial and social subjects. In recent decades, these have included issues of medico-legal uncertainty including, in a partial list, abortion, fetal tissue research, and the propriety of medical termination. Because public opinion surveys are assumed to be “scientific,” and thus (...) unbiased, there has been little discussion of either their suitability in areas of complex, medico-legal uncertainty or the ethics of their use in these areas. This paper reviews their general history and then their use in the debate over medical termination, often called “medical aid in dying.” In this review, two problems are highlighted. First, there is the ambiguous nature of polls and the manner of their construction. Second, there is the manner in which they are deployed as simple and definitive statements in areas of complex medico-legal debate. The result calls for caution in their use by ethicists and a clear duty by both academics and journalists to understand the limits of the medium in areas of medico-legal debate and discussion. (shrink)

Machine learning (ML) systems play an increasingly relevant role in medicine and healthcare. As their applications move ever closer to patient care and cure in clinical settings, ethical concerns about the responsibility of their use come to the fore. I analyse an aspect of responsible ML use that bears not only an ethical but also a significant epistemic dimension. I focus on ML systems’ role in mediating patient–physician relations. I thereby consider how ML systems may silence patients’ voices and relativise (...) the credibility of their opinions, which undermines their overall credibility status without valid moral and epistemic justification. More specifically, I argue that withholding credibilitydue tohow ML systems operate can be particularly harmful to patients and, apart from adverse outcomes, qualifies as a form of testimonial injustice. I make my case for testimonial injustice in medical ML by considering ML systems currently used in the USA to predict patients’ risk of misusing opioids (automated Prediction Drug Monitoring Programmes, PDMPs for short). I argue that the locus of testimonial injustice in ML-mediated medical encounters is found in the fact that these systems are treated asmarkers of trustworthinesson which patients’ credibility is assessed. I further show how ML-based PDMPs exacerbate and further propagate social inequalities at the expense of vulnerable social groups. (shrink)

In 2014, Lord Saatchi launched his ultimately unsuccessful Medical Innovation Bill in the UK. Its laudable aim was to free doctors from the shackles that prevented them from providing responsible innovative treatment. Lord Saatchi’s principal contention was that current law was the unsurmountable barrier that prevented clinicians from delivering innovative treatments to cancer patients when conventional options had failed. This was because doctors feared that they might be sued or tried and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter if they deviated (...) from standard practice. Concerns about fear of the law and potential negative effects on medical practice are not new. Fear of litigation has been suggested as the reason for doctors practising “defensive medicine,” by opting for treatments regarded as “grievance-resistant,” rather than clinically indicated, for example, by ordering diagnostic tests or performing certain procedures, which are not strictly medically necessary. Whilst this claim is plausible and apparently accepted by the courts, there is limited empirical evidence in support of it so far as practitioners in the UK are concerned. In this paper, we report on our empirical research which provides a snapshot of medical opinion to begin to rectify this gap. We ran focus groups of different medical specialties, asking what these medical practitioners thought the barriers to medical innovation to be. We found that fear of the law was not the principal barrier to be lowered, and that the answer was far more multifaceted. (shrink)

The Dutch law states that a physician may perform euthanasia according to a written advance euthanasia directive when a patient is incompetent as long as all legal criteria of due care are met. This may also hold for patients with advanced dementia. We investigated the differing opinions of physicians and members of the general public on the acceptability of euthanasia in patients with advanced dementia.

Background Doctors are increasingly faced with end-of-life decisions. Little is known about how medical students approach euthanasia. The objective of this study was to evaluate, among medical students and residents, the view on euthanasia and its variants; correlate such a view with empathy and religiosity/spiritualism; and with the stages of medical training in Brazil. Methods This is an exploratory cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire to be filled out on a voluntary basis among medical students and (...) residents, consisting of: socio-demographic data, an empathy questionnaire and questions with elaborate clinical cases that typify situations of the variants of euthanasia. Results From 1550 invitations, 273 volunteer participants responded (17.6%). The percentages of strong agreement/agreement on the concepts were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. Religious belief and degree of empathy did not significantly influence the opinion about the concepts. Strong agreement/agreement were: passive euthanasia (72.9%); active euthanasia (22.3%), orthothanasia (90.1%), dysthanasia (18.7%), assisted suicide (33%) and sedation (82.8%). Conclusions Passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, dysthanasia and assisted suicide showed greater refusal with increasing length of medical training. The external validation of our findings relies on the distinct legal, cultural, and religious frameworks found across various countries. (shrink)

PHOTO ID 121339257© Designer491| Dreamstime.com ABSTRACT When physicians use their clinical knowledge and skills to advance the well-being of their patients, there may be apparent conflict between patient autonomy and physician beneficence. We are skeptical that today’s medical ethics education adequately fosters future physicians’ commitment to beneficence, which is both rationally defensible and fundamentally consistent with patient autonomy. We use an ethical dilemma that was presented to a group of third-year medical students to examine how ethics education might (...) be causing them to give undue deference to autonomy, thereby undermining their commitment to beneficence. INTRODUCTION The right of patients to choose which treatments they prefer is rooted in today’s social mores and taught as a principle of medical ethics as respect for autonomy. Yet, when physicians use their clinical knowledge and skills to advance the well-being of their patients, there may be a conflict between patient autonomy and physician beneficence. We are skeptical that today’s medical ethics education adequately fosters a commitment to beneficence, which is both rationally defensible and fundamentally consistent with patient autonomy. I. An Ethical Dilemma The impetus for this paper arose when students who were completing their third clinical year discussed a real-life ethical dilemma. A middle-aged man developed a pulmonary hemorrhage while on blood thinners for a recently placed coronary stent. The bleeding was felt to be reversible, but the patient needed immediate intubation or he would die. The cardiologist was told that the patient previously expressed to other physicians that he never wanted to be intubated. However, the cardiologist made the decision to intubate the patient anyway, and the patient eventually recovered.[1] Students were asked if they believed that the cardiologist had acted ethically. Their overwhelming response was, “No, the patient should have been allowed to die.” We looked into how students applied ethical reasoning to conclude that this outcome was ethically preferred. To explore how the third-year clinical experience might have formed the students’ judgment, we presented the same case to students who were just beginning their third year. Their responses were essentially uniform in recommending intubation. While there is likely more than one reasonable view in this case, we agree with the physician and the younger medical students that intubation was the ethically appropriate decision and will present an argument for it. But first, we explain the reasoning behind the more advanced medical students’ decision to choose patient autonomy at the expense of beneficence. II. Medical Ethics Education and the Priority of Autonomy Beauchamp and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics, first published in 1979 and now in its 8th edition, is a significant part of the formal ethics education in medical school.[2] Students learn an ethical decision-making approach based on respect for four ethical principles: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. While Beauchamp and Childress officially afford no prima facie superiority to any principle, the importance of respect for patient autonomy has increased through the editions of their book. For example, early editions of their book opposed the legalization of physician-assisted death compared to recent editions that defended it.[3] As another example, Beauchamp and Childress make paternalism harder to justify by adding an autonomy-protecting condition to the list of conditions for acceptable paternalism.[4] Authority, they contend, need not conflict with autonomy—provided the authority is autonomously chosen.[5] “The main requirement,” they write, “is to respect a particular patient’s or subject’s autonomous choices, whatever they may be.[6] In the principlism of Beauchamp and Childress, autonomy now seems to have a kind of default priority.[7] However, the bioethics discourse has strong counternarratives, noting some movement to elevate the role of beneficence and to respect the input of stakeholders, including the family and the healthcare team. Ethics education achieves particular relevance in the third clinical year when students become embedded in the care of patients and learn from what has been called the informal curriculum. They observe how attending physicians approach day-to-day ethical problems at the patient’s bedside. In this context, students observe the importance of informed consent for serious treatments or invasive procedures, a practice that highlights the principle of patient autonomy. In both the formal and informal curriculum, medical students observe how, in the words of Paul Wolpe, “patient autonomy has become the central and most powerful principle in ethical decision-making in American medicine.”[8] In short, students appear to learn a deference for patient autonomy. This curricular shift in favor of autonomy coincides with legal developments that protect patients’ rights and decision-making with respect to their healthcare choices. The priority of autonomy in medicine benefits patients by reflecting their choices and, in some cases, their fundamental liberty. III. The Practice of Medicine and the Commitment to Beneficence There are many critiques of the dominant place that autonomy has in biomedical ethics,[9] especially considering that autonomy seems to be biased toward individualistic, Western, and somewhat American culture-driven values.[10] In addition, many bioethical dilemmas are cast as a conflict between autonomy and beneficence. Our point is that medical students bring to their study of medicine a commitment to beneficence that seems to be suppressed by practical ethics education. We think this commitment is rationally defensible and should be nurtured. It is striking that young medical students have a pre-reflective commitment to beneficence at all. For, as we mentioned, it is not just medicine but Western culture generally that prioritizes autonomy in settling ethical dilemmas. In wanting to act for the good of others (rather than simply agreeing to what others want), physicians are already swimming somewhat against the cultural tide.[11] However, doing so makes sense, given the nature of medicine and the profession of healing. When prospective medical students are asked why they wish to become physicians, the usual answer is some variation on caring for the sick and preventing disease. It is unlikely that a reason to become a physician is to respect a patient’s autonomy. It would be easy to dismiss medical students’ commitment to beneficence as a mere intuition and contrary to a more reasoned and deliberative approach. Beauchamp and Childress seem to minimize the value of physician intuition, stating that justifications for certain procedures are “…supported by good reasons. They need not rest merely in intuition or feeling.”[12] Henry Richardson writes that “situational or perceptive intuition…leaves the reasons for decision unarticulated.”[13] We think this is a crude and rather thin way of understanding intuition. Some bioethicists have defended intuition as essential to the practice of medicine and not something opposed to reason.[14] In the case we describe, we believe the ethical justifications s for the patient’s intubation are fundamentally sound: the patient did not have a “do not intubate” order written in the chart, the emergency intubation had not been foreseen, so the patient did not have the opportunity to consent to or reject intubation; the patient had consented to the treatment for his cardiac disease so his consent for intubation could have been assumed;[15] and the consequences of respecting his autonomy did not justify allowing him to die.[16] While it is possible to have more than one reasonable view on this case, we think the case for beneficence is strong and certainly should not be dismissed out of hand. We do not deny that if a patient makes a clearly documented, well-informed decision to forgo intubation that this decision ought to be respected by the physician (even if the physician disagrees with the patient’s decision). But, in this situation, as in many others in the practice of medicine, the patient’s real wishes and preferences are not well-articulated in advance. There are many cases where a physician acts based on what she believes the patient, or the surrogate, would want, sometimes in situations that do not allow much time for reflection. An example might be resuscitation of a newborn at the borderline of viability. In their ethics education, beneficence would mean acting first to save a life. If the patient or surrogate makes an informed decision to the contrary, a beneficent physician respects that autonomous decision. In the case presented, the patient expressed gratitude to the cardiologist when extubated. But what if he had expressed anger at the physician for violating his autonomy? There are those who could argue that not only was intubation ethically wrong but that the cardiologist put himself in legal jeopardy by his actions (especially if there had been a written refusal applicable to the specific situation). In the example we use, we point out that the cardiologist may not have escaped a lawsuit if the patient had died without intubation. His family, when hearing the circumstances, may have sued for failure to act and dereliction of the cardiologist’s duty to save him. Beyond a potential legal challenge for either action or inaction, there is an overriding ethical question the cardiologist had to address: what course would be most satisfying to his conscience? Would he rather allow a patient to die for fear of recrimination, or act to save his life, regardless of the personal consequences? In the absence of real knowledge about the patient’s considered wishes, it is most reasonable to err on the side of promoting patient well-being. A physician’s commitment to beneficence is not necessarily a way of undermining a patient’s autonomy. In acting for the patient's good, physicians are also acting on what it is reasonable to believe a patient (or most patients, perhaps) would want, which is obviously connected to what a patient does want. Pellegrino and Thomasma argue that beneficence includes respect for a patient’s autonomy since “the best interests of the patient are intimately linked with their preferences.”[17] Instead of conceptualizing ethical dilemmas in medicine as conflicts between autonomy and beneficence, it is possible that medical schools could teach students that truly practicing beneficence is a way of valuing patient autonomy, especially when the patient’s wishes are not specific to the situation and are not clearly expressed. CONCLUSION It is important for students and practicing physicians to understand the principle of respect for patient autonomy in a pluralistic society that demands personal self-determination. However, the role of the physician as a beneficent healer should not be diminished by this respect for autonomy. Respecting a patient’s autonomy is grounded in and manifested by physician beneficence.[18] That is, seeking what is good for the patient can only be good if it respects their personhood and dignity. We propose that a commitment to beneficence, incipient in young medical students, should be developed over time with their other clinical reasoning skills. Such a commitment need not be sacrificed on the altar of patient autonomy. Beneficence needs greater relative moral weight with students as they proceed in their ethics education. - [1] S. Jauhar, “When Doctors Need to Lie,” New York Times, February 22, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/when-doctors-need-to-lie.html. [2] T. L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 8th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019). [3] Louise A. Mitchell, “Major Changes in Principles of Biomedical Ethics,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14, no. 3 (2014): 459–75, https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq20141438. [4] Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 8th ed. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), 238. [5] Beauchamp and Childress, 103. [6] Beauchamp and Childress, p. 108. [7] For other accounts that prioritize autonomy, see e.g. Allen E. Buchanan and Dan W. Brock, Deciding for Others: The Ethics of Surrogate Decision Making (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 38–39; R Gillon, “Ethics Needs Principles—Four Can Encompass the Rest—and Respect for Autonomy Should Be ‘First among Equals,’” Journal of Medical Ethics 29, no. 5 (October 2003): 307–12, https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.29.5.307. For examples of critiques of these accounts, see footnote 9. [8] P. R. Wolpe, “The Triumph of Autonomy in American Bioethics: A Sociological View,” in Bioethics and Society: Constructing the Ethical Enterprise, p. 43. [9] V. A. Entwistle et al., “Supporting Patient Autonomy: The Importance of Clinician-Patient Relationships,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 25, no. 7 (July 2010): 741–45; C. Foster, Choosing Life, Choosing Death: The Tyranny of Autonomy in Medical Ethics and Law, 1st ed. (Oxford ; Hart Publishing, 2009); O. O’Neill, Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics, The Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh 2001 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002). [10] P. Marshall and B. Koenig, “Accounting for Culture in a Globalized Bioethics,” The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics: A Journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 2 (2004): 252–66; R. Fan, “Self-Determination vs. Family-Determination: Two Incommensurable Principles of Autonomy,” Bioethics 11, no. 3–4 (1997): 309–22. [11] Arguments stressing the importance of beneficence, as ours does here, certainly approach paternalistic arguments. We set aside the complex issue of paternalism for purposes of this paper and simply note that the principle of beneficence as such does not say anything specifically about acting against the patient’s will. In the case study that focuses this paper, we do not believe the patient’s will or wishes were clearly indicated. [12] Beauchamp and Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, p. 20, see note 2 above. [13] H. S. Richardson, “Specifying, Balancing, and Interpreting Bioethical Principles,” The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine 25, no. 3 (January 1, 2000): 285–307, p. 287. [14] H. D. Braude, Intuition in Medicine a Philosophical Defense of Clinical Reasoning (Chicago ; University of Chicago Press, 2012). [15] R. Kukla, “Conscientious Autonomy: Displacing Decisions in Health Care,” The Hastings Center Report 35, no. 2 (2005): 34–44. [16] M. Schermer, The Different Faces of Autonomy: Patient Autonomy in Ethical Theory and Hospital Practice, vol. 13, Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2002). [17] E. D. Pellegrino and D. C. Thomasma, For the Patient’s Good - the Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 29. [18] Pellegrino and Thomasma, For the Patient’s Good. (shrink)

Medical assistance in dying was legalized in Canada in 2016. As of July 2017, approximately 2149 patients have accessed MAID. There remains no national-level data on the perspectives of future physicians about MAID or its changing legal status. We provide evidence from a national survey of Canadian medical students about their opinions, intentions, and concerns about MAID. From October 2016 to July 2017, we distributed an anonymous online survey to all students at 15 of Canada’s 17 medical (...) schools. The survey collected data on respondent socio-demographic characteristics, features of their medical education, intentions for medical practice, and perspectives on MAID. We analyzed responses using univariate descriptive and stepwise multivariate logistic regression. In 1210 completed surveys, 71% of respondents reported being willing to provide MAID under a legal framework that permits it. Non-religious respondents reported greater willingness to participate in MAID than respondents of any religious affiliation. Frequency of religious attendance was inversely associated with willingness to provide MAID. Medical students born in Québec were more willing to provide MAID than respondents from other provinces. Age, sex, socioeconomic status, year of medical study, previous academic major, and rural/urban city of birth were not associated with willingness to provide MAID. As the current class of medical students becomes the first cohort of new physicians to enter Canada’s changing medical and legal landscape around MAID, our findings inform the public debate by examining attributes associated with support or opposition to the practice. (shrink)

In this paper, we first classify different types of second opinions and evaluate the ethical and epistemological implications of providing those in a clinical context. Second, we discuss the issue of how artificial intelligent could replace the human cognitive labour of providing such second opinion and find that several AI reach the levels of accuracy and efficiency needed to clarify their use an urgent ethical issue. Third, we outline the normative conditions of how AI may be used as second (...) opinion in clinical processes, weighing the benefits of its efficiency against concerns of responsibility attribution. Fourth, we provide a ‘rule of disagreement’ that fulfils these conditions while retaining some of the benefits of expanding the use of AI-based decision support systems in clinical contexts. This is because the rule of disagreement proposes to use AI as much as possible, but retain the ability to use human second opinions to resolve disagreements between AI and physician-in-charge. Fifth, we discuss some counterarguments. (shrink)