The Dilemma of Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Sex Offenders.

BACKGROUND: Penile prosthesis surgeons face an ethical dilemma when confronted with a sex offender who seeks surgical management of erectile dysfunction. AIM: To provide practice guidelines to screen and manage patients with a history of sexual violence prior to surgery. METHODS: Three urologists with expertise in penile prosthesis surgery and 1 medical bioethicist were asked to contribute their opinions and provide recommendations to address this controversial topic. OUTCOMES: Expert opinion supported by analysis of available literature and institutional experience. RESULTS: The authors review current United States legislation, published literature on sex offender registration, and institutional data on the prevalence of sex offenders among men seeking penile prosthesis placement. Within a context established by medical bioethical principles, the authors propose a practice guideline for screening sex offenders prior to penile implantation surgery and referral for trained psychological evaluation prior to surgical management. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths: multidisciplinary approach in data acquisition including bioethical and legal review. LIMITATIONS: Lack of available evidence regarding recidivism risk in sex offenders who undergo penile prosthesis placement. CONCLUSION: Sex offenders exist among the population of patients seeking surgical placement of a penile prosthesis. A standardized practice guideline for management of this population should be employed with the intention to reduce future harm. Zhang JH, DeWitt-Foy M, Jankowski J, et al. The Dilemma of Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Sex Offenders. J Sex Med 2021;18:1826-1829.

Improving Real-World Innovation and Problem Solving in Clinical Ethics: Insights from the First Clinical Ethics Un-Conference.

Despite an abundance of academic conferences, clinical ethicists lacked a forum to share innovative practices with peers and to generate solutions to common challenges. Organizers of the first Clinical Ethics Un-Conference developed a working event centered on active participation and problem solving through peer learning, with the goal of improving real-world practice. Registrants included 95 individuals from 64 institutions. Attendees were surveyed immediately after the Un-Conference, and again eight months later. After eight months, 85 percent (n = 33/39) of the survey respondents reported that they found the event "highly impactful" or "somewhat impactful" to their clinical practice, and 23 attendees reported that they had implemented ideas or projects inspired by the event. Three sets of best practice guidelines and four white papers were published from the event. As the field of clinical ethics continues to advance and evolve, this working event format offers an innovative, disruptive alternative to a traditional conference format and may serve as a model for future efforts aimed at improving real-world clinical ethics practice.

Answering the Call for Standardized Reporting of Clinical Ethics Consultation Data.

Benchmarks against which healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) services can assess their performance are needed. As first-generation benchmarks continue to be developed, it is the obligation of the field to continually evaluate how these measures reflect the performance of any single HCEC service. This will be possible only with widespread reporting of standardized data points. In their article in this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Glover and colleagues provide a valuable preliminary approach for assessing appropriate consult volumes for a HCEC service. The limitations of their study read as a call to action for the field of clinical ethics to expand and standardize data reporting so that more robust metrics can be developed. In response to this call by Glover and colleagues, the Cleveland Clinic HCEC service provides consult data from 2015 through 2019 for one of its medical centers, and offers an additional volume-based metric, consult-to-ICU-to-bed ratio (CiBR), that may add nuance to any normative assessment of HCEC service consult volume. Given that volume-based metrics are the native language of the clinical environment, efforts to improve such metrics in the field through transparency and standardization are warranted. However, the expositive power of volume- based metrics is limited; additional domains related to quality and outcomes are needed.

Clarifying a Clinical Ethics Service's Value, the Visible and the Hidden.

Our aim in this article is to define the difficulties that clinical ethics services encounter when they are asked to demonstrate the value a clinical ethics service (CES) could and should have for an institution and those it serves. The topic emerged out of numerous related presentations at the Un-Conference hosted by the Cleveland Clinic in August 2018 that identified challenges of articulating the value of clinical ethics work for hospital administrators. After a review these talks, it was apparent that the field of clinical ethics may be at a crisis of sorts due to increased pressure to provide explicit measures to healthcare institutions to concretely demonstrate that CESs make a valuable difference in healthcare delivery. In this article we grapple with how to satisfy the need for demonstrable value in a field in which metrics alone may not capture the scope of clinical ethics practice. We suggest that capturing the value of a CES has been difficult because the benefits of ethics consultation may be overt or attributable to the CES, but are often hidden due to the systems-level and process-oriented nature of clinical ethics work. Part of the difficulty in demonstrating the value of CESs is capturing and conveying all of the ways the integration of a CES throughout an institution positively affects patients, families, visitors, healthcare professionals, administrators, and the institution itself. Our aim is to (1) elucidate the multifaceted value added by a CES, including value that tends to be hidden and (2) suggest how to demonstrate value to others in a way that is not simplistic or reductionistic.

The Work of ASBH's Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs Committee: Development Processes Behind Our Educational Materials.

The authors of this article are previous or current members of the Clinical Ethics Consultation Affairs (CECA) Committee, a standing committee of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH). The committee is composed of seasoned healthcare ethics consultants (HCECs), and it is charged with developing and disseminating education materials for HCECs and ethics committees. The purpose of this article is to describe the educational research and development processes behind our teaching materials, which culminated in a case studies book called A Case-Based Study Guide for Addressing Patient-Centered Ethical Issues in Health Care (hereafter, the Study Guide). In this article, we also enumerate how the Study Guide could be used in teaching and learning, and we identify areas that are ripe for future work.

The Role of Communication and Interpersonal Skills in Clinical Ethics Consultation: The Need for a Competency in Advanced Ethics Facilitation.

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) often face some of the most difficult communication and interpersonal challenges that occur in hospitals, involving stressed stakeholders who express, with strong emotions, their preferences and concerns in situations of personal crisis and loss. In this article we will give examples of how much of the important work that ethics consultants perform in addressing clinical ethics conflicts is incompletely conceived and explained in the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation and the clinical ethics literature. The work to which we refer is best conceptualized as a specialized type of interviewing, in which the emotional barriers of patients and their families or surrogates can be identified and addressed in light of relevant ethical obligations and values within the context of ethics facilitation.

Should Health Care Providers Uphold the DNR of a Terminally Ill Patient Who Attempts Suicide?

An individual's right to refuse life-sustaining treatment is a fundamental expression of patient autonomy; however, supporting this right poses ethical dilemmas for healthcare providers when the patient has attempted suicide. Emergency physicians encounter patients who have attempted suicide and are likely among the first medical providers to face the dilemma of honoring the patient's DNR or intervening to reverse the effects of potentially fatal actions. We illustrate this issue by introducing a case example in which the DNR of a terminally ill woman was not honored because the cause of her cardiac arrest was suicide. We argue that although a terminal diagnosis should change the way health care providers respond to a suicide attempt, many of the theoretical underpinnings for how one should treat suicide attempts-especially the criterion of external reasonability, that is the action to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining measures is reasonable independent of the precipitating event-are common to all situations (Brown et al. in Am J Bioeth 13(3):3-12, 2013). The presumption that patients who attempt suicide lack capacity due to acute mental illness is flawed because it fails to account for a competent individual's reasonable preference to not be forced to live in an unbearable, terminal condition. In states without legislation allowing physician aid in dying, patients and providers must grapple with these limitations on a case-by-case basis. In cases where the patient has a limited life expectancy and there is not concern for psychiatric illness as the primary cause of the suicidal action, we argue that the negative right to refuse life-sustaining treatment should prevail.