Responding to the 'crowd' of voices and opinions in the paediatric clinical space: an ethics perspective.

Ready access to the internet and online sources of information about child health and disease has allowed people more 'distant' from a child, family and paediatric clinician to inform and influence clinical decisions. It has also allowed parents to share aspects of their child's health and illness to garner support or funding for treatment. As a consequence, paediatric clinicians must consider and incorporate the crowd of opinions and voices into their clinical and ethical reasoning.We identify two key ethical principles and related ethics concepts foundational to this task. We then propose a series of exploratory ethics questions to assist paediatric clinicians to engage ethically with the multiple voices in the clinical encounter while keeping the child's needs as a central focus. Using two clinical hypothetical case examples, we illustrate how our proposed ethics questions can assist paediatric clinicians to navigate the crowd in the room and bring moral reasoning to bear.We highlight a need for specific practical interactional skills training to assist clinicians to ethically respond to the crowd in the room, including to identify and weigh up the harms and benefits of endorsing or going against proposed treatments for a child, and how to discuss social media and online sources of information with parents.

Social media use and paediatric practice: Hippocratic help, hype or harm?

Social media is increasingly a part of our personal and professional life and is here to stay. Here, I reflect on issues surrounding the use of social media (SMU) in the digital health context by clinicians in Australian paediatric health care. I aim to briefly highlight some inherent multifactorial and contextual ethical considerations which mainly relate to professionalism; including boundaries, obligations to patients and families within the therapeutic alliance, and balancing the help, hype and harm of SMU in clinical practice. I conclude that digital health and SMU are ubiquitous, and can be beneficial if used circumspectly with Hippocratic principles that have been updated for the modern era and are grounded in ancient moral codes. Unfettered SMU however, without adherence to ethical and legal guidelines is problematic, and may expose patients, families and clinicians to significant risk of harm and moral vulnerability. Justifiable, explicit, consistent and regularly reviewed boundaries, both professional and personal, are ethically advisable. These should reflect, and adapt to, the rapidly evolving nature of social media as imprudent digital health and SMU without proportionate limits, may undermine still relevant Hippocratic tenets, and the primacy of doing no harm.

Raising the Dead? Limits of CPR and Harms of Defensive Practices.

We describe the case of an eighty-four-year-old man with disseminated lung cancer who had been receiving palliative care in the hospital and was found by nursing staff unresponsive, with clinically obvious signs of death, including rigor mortis. Because there was no documentation to the contrary, the nurses commenced cardiopulmonary resuscitation and called a code blue, resulting in resuscitative efforts that continued for around twenty minutes. In discussion with the hospital ethicist, senior nurses justified these actions, mainly citing disciplinary and medicolegal concerns. We argue that moral harms arise from CPR performed on a corpse and that legal concerns about failing to perform it are unfounded. We contend that such efforts are an unintended consequence of managerialist policies mandating do-not-resuscitate orders and advance care plans and of defensive practices that can value the interests of institutions and practitioners over those of patients. Health management teaching should include managerialism and its pitfalls, while clinician training should prioritize ethical reasoning and legal knowledge over defensive practice.

Towards a broader concept of wellbeing in evaluating paediatric quality of life.

Paediatric health-care professionals have a primary duty to promote the best interests of their patients. This is reiterated in article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and is predicated on promoting children's health and wellbeing. However, there is ambiguity over what standard applies when evaluating whether a paediatric health-care decision supports good outcomes. Values like 'best interests', 'doing no harm' or 'quality of life' may be indeterminate or vague and clinicians may have difficulty in conceptualising what exactly constitutes 'a good life' for children. This uncertainty leads to the question: how do we best evaluate paediatric health decisions and outcomes? Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that aim to achieve this by attaining data on a patient's quality of life and wellbeing. While PROMs originated with adult cohorts, they have since been applied to paediatric populations. Children are vulnerable due to their interdependency; and this raises ethical tensions regarding the potential benefits of such data, respect for autonomy and assent/consent of the individual child in clinical settings. These inherent tensions should be balanced by realising a collective good for children. PROMs should be a robust data collection source that facilitates substantive justice, both procedurally and in distributing limited health resources via accurate quality-adjusted life-years generation. This article aims to (i) overview the traditional and emerging paediatric PROMs; (ii) outline the tensions of using PROMS for children in a clinical setting and (iii) analyse the ability of traditional and emerging PROMs to promote justice in paediatric resource allocation.

'Dalarinji': A flexible clinic, belonging to and for the Aboriginal people, in an Australian emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Equity and access to high-quality healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Aboriginal) people has remained refractory for complex and multifactorial reasons, and there are sound ethical arguments for addressing this urgently. In EDs all patients who 'leave at own risk' (LAOR) or 'do not wait to be seen' (DNW) are at increased risk of readmission, morbidity or death. This also incurs additional resource costs to the health system. Aboriginal patients have high rates of DNW and LAOR. The Flexiclinic model of care was co-designed to better support the needs of Aboriginal patients in the ED and to reduce the rates of DNW and LAOR. METHODS: 'Dalarinji', or Flexiclinic, is a flexible model of care within the ED collaboratively devised with the Aboriginal Health Unit to address the major factors that influence this vulnerable cohort leaving the St Vincent's Hospital ED (SVHED) prior to being assessed or before completion of treatment. RESULTS: In the 3 months since its introduction, the Flexiclinic approach has significantly improved the quality and equity of access to medical care at SVHED for Aboriginal patients with the average summed rate of DNW and LAOR falling to 5.2% of presentations, representing a fivefold decrease in the probability of Aboriginal patients receiving incomplete care. CONCLUSION: The Flexiclinic approach has significantly improved medical care at SVHED for Aboriginal patients. It has been well received by both staff and patients and has had no adverse effects on delivery of services to other patient groups.

The impact of climate change and biodiversity loss on the health of children: An ethical perspective.

The reality of human induced climate change is no longer in doubt, but the concerted global action required to address this existential crisis remains inexcusably inert. Together with climate change, biodiversity collapse is increasingly driving the emergence and spread of infectious diseases, the consequences of which are inequitable globally. Climate change is regressive in its nature, with those least responsible for destroying planetary health at greatest risk of suffering the direct and indirect health consequences. Over half a billion of the world's children live in areas vulnerable to extreme weather events. Without immediate action, the health of today's children and future generations will be compromised. We consider the impact of biodiversity collapse on the spread of infectious diseases and outline a duty of care along a continuum of three dimensions of medical ethics. From a medical perspective, the first dimension requires doctors to serve the best interests of their individual patients. The second dimension considers the public health dimension with a focus on disease control and cost-effectiveness. The neglected third dimension considers our mutual obligation to the future health and wellbeing of children and generations to come. Given the adverse impact of our ecological footprint on current and future human health, we have a collective moral obligation to act.

Under-explored 'third dimension' of medical ethics.

In this paper, we nominally propose three dimensions of medical ethics, using the term medical ethics rather than clinical ethics to focus on the professional obligation of paediatricians in and beyond the ward and clinic. We argue there exists a duty to children along the continuum of all three dimensions. In this taxonomy, the first dimension is the obligation of paediatricians to serve the best interests of their individual patients. The second dimension involves public health aspects and communitarian concerns with a focus on utilitarian principles, such as cost-effectiveness and just resource allocation. The third dimension of medical ethics is the obligation we hold in trust to support and respect the well-being of future generations. As our ecological footprint, characterised by climate change and biodiversity collapse, will adversely affect the health of today's children and those yet unborn, paediatricians have a contemporaneous moral obligation to speak out and act as both advocates and activists.

Ethical considerations regarding the effects of climate change and planetary health on children.

Climate change represents one of the most significant health challenges and global inequities of our generation. As a 'wicked' problem, climate change imposes an involuntary exposure on vulnerable individuals and societies that is regressive in its nature, with those least responsible for destroying planetary health at greatest risk of suffering the direct and indirect health consequences of unabated warming of the planet. The current and future generations of children are the most vulnerable population to suffer the effects of climate change. By 2030, there will be 131 000 additional child deaths each year if climate mitigation strategies are not enacted, driven by the synergy of an increasing burden of infectious diseases, food insecurity and political instability. Over half a billion of the world's children live in areas vulnerable to extreme weather events, and there is a pressing risk that our current lack of action to mitigate and adapt to climate change will result in today's children, and future generations, being the first to have poorer physical and mental health than previous generations - creating a significant intergenerational ethical dilemma. Child health-care professionals need to advocate for policies to address climate change that consider the complex health, planetary and ethical considerations necessary to solve the most significant risk to our children's health today. Without immediate action, the health of the current and future generations of children is perilous.

The ethics of publishing in medical journals.

Ethics has been defined as the way we ought to behave. Medical publishing essentially exists to broadcast current and new medical knowledge to aid in the practice of medicine. In this review article we consider many of the aspects of medical publishing with regard to 'what we ought to do' and, equally, 'what we ought not to do' from the perspective of various ethical frameworks. Although ethics is not the law or a set of rules, nor a code of conduct, an ethical lens can be useful when developing good general guidelines for medical publishing.

Supporting black lives 'mattering' with flexible health care.

Black lives 'mattering' should mean intrinsically supporting feasible healthcare options for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This requires reimagining outmoded, 'neo-colonial' type models of care with implicit prejudice in hospital emergency departments (EDs). Equitably serving the needs of vulnerable cohorts like First Nations people that currently suffer most from lack of access to suitable healthcare is incumbent on government and society. To 'close the gap' for Aboriginal people, flexible treatment options should be designed with and for indigenous communities; developing models of care that will improve Aboriginal patient's attendance and completion of treatment in emergency departments. Flexiclinic, jointly developed by the Aboriginal Liaison Service and St Vincent's Hospital ED has developed such an innovative model. Since its recent inception, it has already shown enormous benefits, both in promoting equitable access and improving the health and welfare of Aboriginal patients who are receiving ongoing and quality care.

An Ethics Framework for Making Resource Allocation Decisions Within Clinical Care: Responding to COVID-19.

On March, 24, 2020, 818 cases of COVID-19 had been reported in New South Wales, Australia, and new cases were increasing at an exponential rate. In anticipation of resource constraints arising in clinical settings as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a working party of ten ethicists (seven clinicians and three full-time academics) was convened at the University of Sydney to draft an ethics framework to support resource allocation decisions. The framework guides decision-makers using a question-and-answer format, in language that avoids philosophical and medical technicality. The working party met five times over the following week and then submitted a draft Framework for consideration by two groups of intensivists and one group of academic ethicists. It was also presented to a panel on a national current affairs programme. The Framework was then revised on the basis of feedback from these sources and made publicly available online on April 3, ten days after the initial meeting. The framework is published here in full to stimulate ongoing discussion about rapid development of user-friendly clinical ethics resources in ongoing and future pandemics.