UK doctors' strikes 2023-2024: still justified in the interests of public health, even in time-critical outpatient contexts.

We respond to David Wilkinson's arguments against our view of the ethicality of doctors' strikes and our claim that the 2023-2024 UK doctors' strikes are morally permissible and arguably supererogatory.Wilkinson proposes that in specialist outpatient settings, striking doctors should help arrange their own cover to prevent disproportionate harm to patients and to abide by the principles of non-maleficence and fiduciary duty. This hasn't happened during the 2023-2024 UK doctors' strikes; therefore, in his view, these strikes are morally impermissible. We reject Wilkinson's proposal on the grounds that the risk of disproportionate harm is adequately mitigated by existing arrangements and his interpretations of non-maleficence and fiduciary duty are overly demanding.We agree with Wilkinson that strikes put particularly high pressure on covering doctors in chronically under resourced specialisms. But this doesn't justify calling off or depowering doctors' strikes because, without effective strikes, under-resourcing is likely to continue and, ultimately, cause even more harm.Wilkinson argues that doctors cannot justifiably strike in the interests of public health because they don't have a broad duty to public health. We think they do have such a duty; however, we argue that doctors can justifiably strike in the interest of public health whether they have such a duty or not.Finally, we defend our claim that doctors' strikes can be supererogatory from Wilkinson's objections that there may be no such thing as supererogatory action and that our view absurdly entails that strikes can be supererogatory despite placing unfair demands on others.

UK doctors' strikes 2023: not only justified but, arguably, supererogatory.

The 2023 doctors' strikes in the UK have elicited a familiar moral outcry that such strikes are morally wrong. We consider five arguments that might be thought to show doctors' strikes are morally impermissible but show that they all fail. The most we can conclude from such arguments is that doctors' strikes are morally permissible in a narrower range of circumstances than strikes in other sectors.We then outline two independent but compatible justifications for doctors' strikes, one that appeals to doctors' interests in fair pay and working conditions and one that appeals to doctors' duty to protect public health. We also suggest that doctors' strikes can be supererogatory when they aim to correct a government failing in its own duty to protect public health. Finally, we assess the 2023 UK doctors' strikes. We conclude that they are justified and there is a case for considering them supererogatory.

Assessing Public Reason Approaches to Conscientious Objection in Healthcare.

Sometimes healthcare professionals conscientiously refuse to treat patients despite the patient requesting legal, medically indicated treatments within the professionals' remit. Recently, there has been a proliferation of views using the concept of public reason to specify which conscientious refusals of treatment should be accommodated. Four such views are critically assessed, namely, those of Robert Card, Massimo Reichlin, David Scott, and Doug McConnell. This paper argues that McConnell's view has advantages over the other approaches because it combines the requirement that healthcare professionals publicly justify the grounds of their conscientious refusals of treatment with the requirement that those grounds align with minimally decent healthcare. This relatively restrictive approach accommodates conscientious refusals from minimally decent healthcare professionals while still protecting good healthcare, the independence of the healthcare professions, and the fiduciary relationships.

Making psychiatry moral again: the role of psychiatry in patient moral development.

Psychiatric involvement in patient morality is controversial. If psychiatrists are tasked with shaping patient morality, the coercive potential of psychiatry is increased, treatment may be unfairly administered on the basis of patients' moral beliefs rather than medical need, moral disputes could damage the therapeutic relationship and, in any case, we are often uncertain or conflicted about what is morally right. Yet, there is also a strong case for the view that psychiatry often works through improving patient morality and, therefore, should aim to do so. Our goal is to offer a practical and ethical path through this conflict. We argue that the default psychiatric approach to patient morality should be procedural, whereby patients are helped to express their own moral beliefs. Such a procedural approach avoids the brunt of objections to psychiatric involvement in patient morality. However, in a small subset of cases where patients' moral beliefs are sufficiently distorted or underdeveloped, we claim that psychiatrists should move to a substantive approach and shape the content of those beliefs when they are relevant to psychiatric outcomes. The substantive approach is prone to the above objections but we argue it is nevertheless justified in this subset of cases.

A principle-based framework for disclosing a psychosis risk diagnosis.

In recent decades, researchers have attempted to prospectively identify individuals at high risk of developing psychosis in the hope of delaying or preventing psychosis onset. These psychosis risk individuals are identified as being in an 'At-Risk Mental State' (ARMS) through a standardised psychometric interview. However, disclosure of ARMS status has attracted criticism due to concerns about the risk-benefit ratio of disclosure to patients. Only approximately one quarter of ARMS patients develop psychosis after three years, raising concerns about the unnecessary harm associated with such 'false-positive' results. These harms are especially pertinent when identifying psychosis risk individuals due to potential stigma and discrimination in a young clinical population. A dearth of high-quality evidence supporting interventions for ARMS patients raises further doubts about the benefit accompanying an ARMS disclosure. Despite ongoing discussion in the bioethical literature, these concerns over the ethical justification of disclosure to ARMS patients are not directly addressed in clinical guidelines. In this paper, we aim to provide a unified disclosure strategy grounded in principle-based analysis for ARMS clinicians. After considering the ethical values at stake in ARMS disclosure, and their normative significance, we argue that full disclosure of the ARMS label is favoured in the vast majority of clinical situations due to the strong normative significance of enhancing patients' understanding. We then compare our framework with other approaches to ARMS disclosure and outline its limitations.

The Balanced View of the Value of Conscience.

On the mainstream view, consciences are valuable because they promote moral unity. However, conscience, so defined, will systematically prevent moral growth that threatens unity, even when unity has formed around oppressive moral values. This motivates Carolyn McLeod's alternative 'Dynamic View' whereby consciences are valuable to the extent that they are dynamic. Consciences are dynamic when they interact with our best moral judgements to shape or 'retool' the moral values underpinning conscience, sometimes at an initial cost to unity. We modify and extend McLeod's account in two ways: (1) We object to her claim that conscience encourages its own retooling. We argue that the opposite is true - conscience creates a motivational barrier to change that moral judgement must overcome to successfully retool conscience. The task of ensuring dynamism, therefore, falls to moral judgement. (2) However, this motivational barrier enables conscience to play a valuable role that McLeod overlooks - compensating for the limitations of moral judgement. On our Balanced View, the value of conscience depends on it being sufficiently open to being shaped by our best moral judgements but inert enough to compensate for distorted moral judgements and to guide action when under cognitive load.

Conscientious Objection in Health Care: Pinning down the Reasonability View.

Robert Card's "Reasonability View" is a significant contribution to the debate over the place of conscientious objection in health care. In his view, conscientious objections can only be accommodated if the grounds for the objection meet a reasonability standard. I identify inconsistencies in Card's description of the reasonability standard and argue that each version he specifies is unsatisfactory. The criteria for reasonability that Card sets out most frequently have no clear underpinning principle and are too permissive of immoral objections. Card has also claimed that petitioners must justify their positions with Rawlsian public reason. I argue that, although the resulting reasonability standard is principled, it is overly restrictive. I also show that a reasonability standard built on Rawls' more lenient conception of reasonableness would be overly permissive of objections at odds with professional healthcare standards. Finally, I argue for my favored solution, which bases the reasonability standard on minimal professional standards.

Balancing the duty to treat with the duty to family in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Healthcare systems around the world are struggling to maintain a sufficient workforce to provide adequate care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Staffing problems have been exacerbated by healthcare workers (HCWs) refusing to work out of concern for their families. I sketch a deontological framework for assessing when it is morally permissible for HCWs to abstain from work to protect their families from infection and when it is a dereliction of duty to patients. I argue that it is morally permissible for HCWs to abstain from work when their duty to treat is outweighed by the combined risks and burdens of that work. For HCWs who live with their families, the obligation to protect one's family from infection contributes significantly to those burdens. There are, however, a range of complicating factors including the strength of duty to treat which varies according to the HCW's role, the vulnerability of family members to the disease, the willingness of family members to risk infection and the resources available to the HCW to protect their family. In many cases, HCWs in 'frontline' roles with a weak duty to treat and families at home will be morally permitted to abstain from work given the risks posed by COVID-19; therefore, society should provide additional incentives to maintain sufficient staff in these roles.

Compensation and hazard pay for key workers during an epidemic: an argument from analogy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unusually challenging and dangerous workplace conditions for key workers. This has prompted calls for key workers to receive a variety of special benefits over and above their normal pay. Here, we consider whether two such benefits are justified: a no-fault compensation scheme for harm caused by an epidemic and hazard pay for the risks and burdens of working during an epidemic. Both forms of benefit are often made available to members of the armed forces for the harms, risks and burdens that come with military service. We argue from analogy that these benefits also ought to be provided to key workers during an epidemic because, like the military, key workers face unavoidable harms, risks and burdens in providing essential public good. The amount of compensation should be proportional to the harm suffered and the amount of hazard pay should be proportional to the risk and burden endured. Therefore, key workers should receive the same amount of compensation and hazard pay as the military where the harms, risks and burdens are equivalent. In the UK, a form of no-fault compensation has recently been made available to the surviving families of key workers who suffer fatal COVID-19 infections. According to our argument, however, it is insufficient because it offers less to key workers than is made available to the families of armed services personnel killed on duty.

Conscientious objection in healthcare: How much discretionary space best supports good medicine?

Daniel Sulmasy has recently argued that good medicine depends on physicians having a wide discretionary space in which they can act on their consciences. The only constraints Sulmasy believes we should place on physicians' discretionary space are those defined by a form of tolerance he derives from Locke, whereby people can publicly act in accordance with their personal religious and moral beliefs as long as their actions are not destructive to society. Sulmasy also claims that those who would reject physicians' right to conscientious objection eliminate discretionary space, thus undermining good medicine and unnecessarily limiting religious freedom. I argue that, although Sulmasy is correct that some discretionary space is necessary for good medicine, he is wrong in thinking that proscribing conscientious objection entails eliminating discretionary space. I illustrate this using Julian Savulescu and Udo Schuklenk's system for restricting conscientious objections as a counter-example. I then argue that a narrow discretionary space constrained by professional ideals will promote good medicine better than Sulmasy's wider discretionary space constrained by his conception of tolerance. Sulmasy's version of discretionary space would have us tolerate actions that are at odds with aspects of good medicine, including aspects that Sulmasy himself explicitly values, such as fiduciary duty. Therefore, if we want the degree of religious freedom in the public sphere that Sulmasy favours then we must decide whether it is worth the cost to the healthcare system.

Public reason in justifications of conscientious objection in health care.

Current mainstream approaches to conscientious objection either uphold the standards of public health care by preventing objections or protect the consciences of health-care professionals by accommodating objections. Public justification approaches are a compromise position that accommodate conscientious objections only when objectors can publicly justify the grounds of their objections. Public justification approaches require objectors and assessors to speak a common normative language and to this end it has been suggested that objectors should be required to cast their objection in terms of public reason. We provide critical support for such a public reason condition and argue that it would be neither too demanding nor too permissive. We also respond to objections that it unfairly favours secular over religious objectors and that public reasons cannot be held with the kind of sincerity thought to characterize conscientious objections.

Narrative self-constitution and vulnerability to co-authoring.

All people are vulnerable to having their self-concepts shaped by others. This article investigates that vulnerability using a theory of narrative self-constitution. According to narrative self-constitution, people depend on others to develop and maintain skills of self-narration and they are vulnerable to having the content of their self-narratives co-authored by others. This theoretical framework highlights how vulnerability to co-authoring is essential to developing a self-narrative and, thus, the possibility of autonomy. However, this vulnerability equally entails that co-authors can undermine autonomy by contributing disvalued content to the agent's self-narrative and undermining her authorial skills. I illustrate these processes with the first-hand reports of several women who survived sexual abuse as children. Their narratives of survival and healing reveal the challenges involved in (re)developing the skills required to manage vulnerability to co-authoring and how others can help in this process. Finally, I discuss some of the implications of co-authoring for the healthcare professional and the therapeutic relationship.

Antibiotic exposure and breast cancer in New Zealand.

Aims To investigate the hypothesis that use of antibiotics is related to subsequent development of breast cancer and also to apply this theory to other cancer types. Materials and methods A nested case-control study was conducted, using data linkage between the RNZCGP Research Unit database and the New Zealand Hospital Separation Diagnosis database. Cancer related hospital admissions were identified between 1998 and 2002, and prior antibiotic exposure in these patients was then found. Results A total of 6678 patients were identified with a newly diagnosed cancer in this time period. A slightly increased odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) for breast cancer was seen with penicillin, 1.07 (1.02-1.13). Penicillin was also associated with an increased OR with lung and respiratory cancer, 1.13 (1.06-1.21), and skin neoplasms, 1.05 (1.02-1.08). Significant associations were seen between macrolides and leukaemia, 1.15 (1.01-1.30), lung and respiratory cancers, 1.23 (1.10-1.38) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 1.26 (1.02-1.55). Tetracyclines were significantly associated with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 1.12 (1.01-1.24). Cephalosporins only showed a significant association with leukaemia, 1.35 (1.06-1.71), sulphonamides with colorectal cancers, 1.12 (1.01-1.24), and 'other' antibiotic classes with bladder and renal cancers, 1.34 (1.07-1.67). Conclusions It is most likely that antibiotic exposure represents a confounding factor rather than a causation for breast cancer and other cancer types.

Suicide and self-harm following prescription of SSRIs and other antidepressants: confounding by indication.

AIM: To identify the incidence and risk of suicide and self harm, among patients prescribed antidepressant drugs. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, with nested case control, of patients identified from a nonrandom sample of general practices in New Zealand from 1996 to 2001. A total of 57 361 patients who received a prescription for a single antidepressant were identified from the RNZCGP Research Unit Database. Suicides within 120 days of a prescription were identified from the New Zealand National Mortality Database and self-harm events within 120 days of a prescription were identified from the New Zealand Hospital discharge database. RESULTS: 26 suicides and 330 episodes of self-harm were identified within 120 days of an antidepressant prescription. On univariate analysis the association, expressed as OR (95% CI), between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and self harm and suicide were 2.26 (1.27-4.76) and 1.92 (0.77-4.83), respectively. When corrected for the confounding effects of age, gender and depression/suicidal ideation there was an association between SSRIs and self harm, OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.23-2.23), but not for suicide, 1.28 (0.38-4.35). Paroxetine was a significant risk factor for suicide on univariate analysis, 4.23 (1.19-14.95), but not when corrected for age, gender and depression/suicidal ideation, 2.76 (0.30-24.87). CONCLUSIONS: Age, gender and pre-existing depression/suicidal ideation are important confounders in observational studies of the association between antidepressants and suicide or self harm.