Why we should not "help bad choosers:" screening, nudging, and epistemic risk.

One prominent line of support for nudging in screening programs is the claim that nudging can help 'bad choosers' - that is, it can help some patients make choices more in line with their own values and preferences. In this article, I argue that due to the presence of epistemic risk in many screening programs, the argument that nudging can help 'bad choosers' should be revised or rejected. Expanding on the work of Biddle, J. B. 2020. Epistemic risks in cancer screening: Implications for ethics and policy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 79: 101200.), I argue that epistemic risk undermines the argument that nudging can help to promote patient autonomy in the context of screening. Specifically, I argue that epistemic risk results in the inclusion of non-patient values and preferences in the screening process, which challenges the claim that nudging can help patients make choices more in line with their own values and preferences. I present four reasons to think epistemic risk undermines the argument in this way: (1) conflicting values; (2) lack of transparency; (3) limited autonomy in opting out; (4) unjustified manipulation. The presence of epistemic risk in screening programs means that nudging may not always be an effective means of promoting patient autonomy and informed consent. As such, epistemic risk poses significant challenges to at least one ethical justification of nudging in screening programs, and raises further questions about the role of nudging in promoting patient decision-making.

Frontline Healthcare Professionals' Views Regarding the Impact of COVID-19 on Ethical Decision-Making: A Multicentre Mixed-Methods Study from Estonia.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to investigate frontline healthcare professionals' experiences and attitudes in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic's ethical and psychosocial aspects in Estonia. There were two research foci: first, ethical decision-making related to treating patients in the context of potential medical resource scarcity, and second, other psychosocial factors for healthcare professionals pertaining to coping, role conflicts, and the availability of institutional support. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in the fall of 2020 amongst the frontline healthcare professionals working in the three most impacted hospitals; respondents were also drawn from two ambulance services. The focus of the survey was on the first wave of COVID-19 (spring 2020). A total of 215 respondents completed the quantitative survey and qualitative data were gathered from open comments. RESULTS: Over half of the surveyed healthcare professionals in Estonia expressed confidence in their roles during the pandemic. More than half cited the complex ethical aspects related to their decisions as their main source of doubt and uncertainty. In response to this uncertainty, Estonian healthcare professionals drew on their previous training and experience, the policies and guidelines of their institution, and support from their colleagues, to aid their decision-making during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Although frontline healthcare professionals faced difficult decisions during the first wave of the pandemic, overall, most agreed that experiencing the pandemic reconfirmed that their work mattered greatly.