Limitation of life sustaining therapy in disorders of consciousness: ethics and practice.

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a 'good' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC.

Harmonising green informed consent with autonomous clinical decision-making: a reply to Resnik and Pugh.

Resnik and Pugh recently explored the ethical implications of routinely integrating environmental concerns into clinical decision-making. While we share their concern for the holistic well-being of patients, our response offers a different clinical and bioethical stance on green informed consent and patient autonomy. Contrary to the authors' lack of data to support their concerns about provider and patient willingness to engage in climate-related conversations, we provide evidence supporting their sustainability engagement and stress the importance of a proactive, anticipatory approach in healthcare to align with evolving societal values. If climate change is perceived as a politicised issue, though it is not inherently so, healthcare providers are professionally trained to address sensitive subjects and have a duty to inform patients about potential health risks. Recognising the environmental crisis as a health crisis underscores the direct connection between environmental hazards and patients' well-being. Our perspective advocates for integrating individual considerations, societal responsibilities and systemic changes to promote environmentally sustainable healthcare.

Reflexive control in emergency medicine.

Emergency physicians (EPs) navigate high-pressure environments, making rapid decisions amidst ambiguity. Their choices are informed by a complex interplay of experience, information, and external forces. While cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) expedite assessments, there are multiple ways they can be subtly manipulated, potentially leading to reflexive control: external actors steering EPs' decisions for their own benefit. Pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and media narratives are among the numerous factors that influence the EPs' information landscape. Using tactics such as selective data dissemination, framing, and financial incentives, these actors can exploit pre-existing cognitive biases like anchoring, confirmation, and availability. This creates fertile ground for reflexive control, where EPs may believe they are acting independently while unknowingly serving the goals of external influencers. The consequences of manipulated decision making can be severe: misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and increased healthcare costs. Ethical dilemmas arise when external pressures conflict with patient well-being. Recognizing these dangers empowers EPs to resist reflexive control through (1) critical thinking: examining information for potential biases and prioritizing evidence-based practices, (2) continuous education: learning about cognitive biases and mitigation strategies, and (3) institutional policies: implementing regulations to reduce external influence and to promote transparency. This vulnerability of emergency medicine decision making highlights the need for awareness, education, and robust ethical frameworks. Understanding reflexive control techniques is crucial for safeguarding patient care and promoting independent, ethical decision making in emergency medicine.

Pediatric Decision-Making: ethical aspects specific to neonates.

Recently published consensus recommendations on pediatric decision-making by Salter and colleagues (2023) did not address neonatal decision-making, due to the unique complexities of neonatal care. This essay explores three areas that impact neonatal decision-making: legal and policy considerations, rapid technological advancement, and the unique emotional burdens faced by parents and clinicians during the medical care of neonates. The authors evaluate the six consensus recommendations related to these considerations and conclude that the consensus recommendations apply to neonates.

Limits on Parental Discretion in Medical Decision-Making: pediatric intervention principles converge.

Pediatric intervention principles help clinicians and health-care institutions determine appropriate responses when parents' medical decisions place children at risk. Several intervention principles have been proposed and defended in the pediatric ethics literature. These principles may appear to provide conflicting guidance, but much of that conflict is superficial. First, seemingly different pediatric intervention principles sometimes converge on the same guidance. Second, these principles often aim to solve different problems in pediatrics or to operate in different background conditions. The potential for convergence between intervention principles-or at least an absence of conflict between them-matters for both the theory and practice of pediatric ethics. This article builds on the recent work of a diverse group of pediatric ethicists tasked with identifying consensus guidelines for pediatric decision-making.

Artificial Intelligence to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients: a survey among German anesthesiologists and internists.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various healthcare domains, where AI algorithms sometimes even outperform human specialists. However, the field of clinical ethics has remained largely untouched by AI advances. This study explores the attitudes of anesthesiologists and internists towards the use of AI-driven preference prediction tools to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and pretested among medical students. The questionnaire was distributed to 200 German anesthesiologists and 200 German internists, thereby focusing on physicians who often encounter patients lacking decision-making capacity. The questionnaire covered attitudes toward AI-driven preference prediction, availability and utilization of Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and experiences with ethically challenging situations. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis was performed. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis in a mixed inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly male (69.3%), with ages ranging from 27 to 77. Most worked in nonacademic hospitals (82%). Physicians generally showed hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction, citing concerns about the loss of individuality and humanity, lack of explicability in AI results, and doubts about AI's ability to encompass the ethical deliberation process. In contrast, physicians had a more positive opinion of CESS. Availability of CESS varied, with 81.8% of participants reporting access. Among those without access, 91.8% expressed a desire for CESS. Physicians' reluctance toward AI-driven preference prediction aligns with concerns about transparency, individuality, and human-machine interaction. While AI could enhance the accuracy of predictions and reduce surrogate burden, concerns about potential biases, de-humanisation, and lack of explicability persist. CONCLUSIONS: German physicians frequently encountering incapacitated patients exhibit hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction but hold a higher esteem for CESS. Addressing concerns about individuality, explicability, and human-machine roles may facilitate the acceptance of AI in clinical ethics. Further research into patient and surrogate perspectives is needed to ensure AI aligns with patient preferences and values in complex medical decisions.

Can GPT-4 revolutionize otolaryngology? Navigating opportunities and ethical considerations.

Otolaryngologists can enhance workflow efficiency, provide better patient care, and advance medical research and education by integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into their practices. GPT-4 technology is a revolutionary and contemporary example of AI that may apply to otolaryngology. The knowledge of otolaryngologists should be supplemented, not replaced when using GPT-4 to make critical medical decisions and provide individualized patient care. In our thorough examination, we explore the potential uses of the groundbreaking GPT-4 technology in the field of otolaryngology, covering aspects such as potential outcomes and technical boundaries. Additionally, we delve into the intricate and intellectually challenging dilemmas that emerge when incorporating GPT-4 into otolaryngology, considering the ethical considerations inherent in its implementation. Our stance is that GPT-4 has the potential to be very helpful. Its capabilities, which include aid in clinical decision-making, patient care, and administrative job automation, present exciting possibilities for enhancing patient outcomes, boosting the efficiency of healthcare delivery, and enhancing patient experiences. Even though there are still certain obstacles and limitations, the progress made so far shows that GPT-4 can be a valuable tool for modern medicine. GPT-4 may play a more significant role in clinical practice as technology develops, helping medical professionals deliver high-quality care tailored to every patient's unique needs.

Algor-ethics: charting the ethical path for AI in critical care.

The integration of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) based on artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is groundbreaking evolution with enormous potential, but its development and ethical implementation, presents unique challenges, particularly in critical care, where physicians often deal with life-threating conditions requiring rapid actions and patients unable to participate in the decisional process. Moreover, development of AI-based CDSS is complex and should address different sources of bias, including data acquisition, health disparities, domain shifts during clinical use, and cognitive biases in decision-making. In this scenario algor-ethics is mandatory and emphasizes the integration of 'Human-in-the-Loop' and 'Algorithmic Stewardship' principles, and the benefits of advanced data engineering. The establishment of Clinical AI Departments (CAID) is necessary to lead AI innovation in healthcare, ensuring ethical integrity and human-centered development in this rapidly evolving field.

Guiding Ethical Decisions in Cochlear Implantation for the Hearing Impaired with Comorbid Psychosis.

AbstractCochlear implants can restore hearing in people with severe hearing loss and have a significant impact on communication, social integration, self-esteem, and quality of life. However, whether and how much clinical benefit is derived from cochlear implants varies significantly by patient and is influenced by the etiology and extent of hearing loss, medical comorbidities, and preexisting behavioral and psychosocial issues. In patients with underlying psychosis, concerns have been raised that the introduction of auditory stimuli could trigger hallucinations, worsen existing delusions, or exacerbate erratic behavior. This concern has made psychosis a relative contraindication to cochlear implant surgery. This is problematic because there is a lack of data describing this phenomenon and because the psychosocial benefits derived from improvement in auditory function may be a critical intervention for treating psychosis in some patients. The objective of this report is to provide an ethical framework for guiding clinical decision-making on cochlear implant surgery in the hearing impaired with psychosis.

Decision-Making in Surgery.

Surgeons face unique challenges in perioperative decision-making and communication with patients and families. In cardiothoracic surgery, the stakes are high, life and death decisions must be made quickly, and surgeons often lack a longstanding relationship with patients and families prior to intervention. This review considers specific challenges in the preoperative period followed by those faced postoperatively. While preoperative deliberation and informed consent focus on reaching a decision between 2 or more alternative approaches, the most vexing postoperative decisions often involve the patient's discontent with the best-case outcome or how to ensure goal-concordant care when complications arise. This review explores the preoperative ethical and legal requirement for informed consent by describing the contemporary preferred method, shared decision-making. We also present a framework to optimize surgeon communication and promote patient and family engagement in the setting of high-risk surgery for older patients with serious illness. In the postoperative period the family is often tasked with deciding what to do about major complications when the patient has lost decision-making capacity. We discuss several examples and offer strategies for surgeons to navigate these challenging situations. We also explore the concepts of clinical heroism and futility in relation to communicating with patients and families about the outcomes of surgery. Persistent ethical challenges in decision-making suggest that surgeons should improve their skills in communicating with patients to better engage with them, both before and after surgery.

Managing the Labyrinth of Complex Ethical Issues in Anesthesia Practice: The Anesthesiologist's Ariadne's Thread.

Facing ethical dilemmas is challenging and sometimes becomes a real burden for anesthesiologists, particularly because they rarely have previous or long-standing patient relationships that help inform clinical decision-making. Although there is no ideal algorithm that can fit all clinical situations, some basic moral and ethical principles, which should be part of every clinician's armamentarium, can guide the decision-making process. Dealing with conflicting views among providers and/or patients can be distressing but can lead to meaningful professional and personal growth for each clinician.

Surgical Regret and Intraoperative Decision-Making: A Living Donor Kidney Case.

Surgical regret often experienced at times of a great loss may cause a surgeon to reflect on their practice and intraoperative decision-making. It is inevitable that in the surgical profession, both in training and practice, a surgeon's decisions will be questioned by themselves, peers, and possibly patients. Here, we explore a case of living donor kidney donation in which the surgeon chooses to discontinue the operation for an incidental finding. Ultimately, this is against the patient's wishes and a decision over which both the surgeon and patient experience moral hazard and regret. This article explores surgical regret from the lens of an altruistic donor case and a surgeon's inaction, discussing the ethics of the operative decision-making and surgeon's viewpoint intra- and post-operatively.

Ethical issues surrounding appropriate care for older persons in the Intensive Care Unit.

Increasing numbers of older patients are being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as the world's population ages. The biological process of ageing, senescence, results in altered ability to maintain normal homeostasis and organ function, including of the cardiovascular, immune, and neuromuscular systems. This contributes towards increased frailty in older patients, associated with functional limitations and increased vulnerability. Although widely defined using chronological age, the concept of "old age" is thus multifactorial, including biological, but also psychological and sociocultural aspects, which should all be taken into account when considering what is appropriate in terms of ICU admission and management. As for all patients, but perhaps particularly in this subgroup, decisions regarding ICU admission and treatment and the withdrawing and withholding of life support must be individualized.

Navigating the Impact of the Dobbs Decision: Perspectives from Pediatric Surgeons on Reproductive Healthcare.

Nationwide abortion restrictions resulting from the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) decision have generated confusion and uncertainty among healthcare professionals, with concerns for liability impacting clinical decision-making and outcomes. The impact on pediatric surgery can be seen in prenatal counseling for fetal anomaly cases, counseling for fetal intervention, and recommendations for pregnant children and adolescents who seek termination. It is essential that all physicians and healthcare team members understand the legal implications on their clinical practices, engage with resources and organizations that can help navigate these circumstances, and consider advocating for patients and themselves. Pediatric surgeons must consider the impact of these changing laws on their ability to provide comprehensive and ethical care and counseling to all patients.

Ethical dilemmas in COVID-19 times: how to decide who lives and who dies?

SUMMARY The respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a pandemic that produces a large number of simultaneous patients with severe symptoms and in need of special hospital care, overloading the infrastructure of health services. All of these demands generate the need to ration equipment and interventions. Faced with this imbalance, how, when, and who decides, there is the impact of the stressful systems of professionals who are at the front line of care and, in the background, issues inherent to human subjectivity. Along this path, the idea of using artificial intelligence algorithms to replace health professionals in the decision-making process also arises. In this context, there is the ethical question of how to manage the demands produced by the pandemic. The objective of this work is to reflect, from the point of view of medical ethics, on the basic principles of the choices made by the health teams, during the COVID-19 pandemic, whose resources are scarce and decisions cause anguish and restlessness. The ethical values for the rationing of health resources in an epidemic must converge to some proposals based on fundamental values such as maximizing the benefits produced by scarce resources, treating people equally, promoting and recommending instrumental values, giving priority to critical situations. Naturally, different judgments will occur in different circumstances, but transparency is essential to ensure public trust. In this way, it is possible to develop prioritization guidelines using well-defined values and ethical recommendations to achieve fair resource allocation.

RESUMO A doença respiratória provocada pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19) é uma pandemia que produz uma grande quantidade simultânea de doentes com sintomas graves que necessitam de cuidados hospitalares especiais, sobrecarregando a infraestrutura dos serviços de saúde. Todas essas demandas geram a necessidade de racionar equipamentos e intervenções. Diante desse desequilíbrio, como, quando e quem decide, há o impacto dos sistemas estressores dos profissionais que se encontram na linha de frente do atendimento e, em segundo plano, questões inerentes à subjetividade humana. Nesse percurso, surge ainda a ideia do uso de algoritmos da inteligência artificial para substituir o profissional de saúde nessa tomada de decisão. Nesse contexto, fica o questionamento ético de como gerenciar as demandas produzidas pela pandemia. O objetivo deste trabalho é refletir, do ponto de vista da ética médica, sobre princípios basilares das escolhas executadas pelas equipes de saúde, no enfrentamento da pandemia da COVID-19, cujos recursos são escassos e as decisões ocasionam angústia e inquietação. Os valores éticos para o racionamento de recursos de saúde em uma epidemia devem convergir para algumas propostas embasadas em valores fundamentais, como maximizar os benefícios produzidos por recursos escassos, tratar as pessoas de forma igualitária, promover e recomendar os valores instrumentais, dar prioridade para situações críticas. Naturalmente ocorrerão julgamentos diferentes em circunstâncias distintas, mas é fundamental que haja transparência para garantir a confiança pública. Desse modo, é possível elaborar diretrizes de priorização utilizando valores e recomendações éticas bem delineados para atingir procedimentos justos de alocação de recursos.