Clinical ethics consultation services: public-facing information on NCI-designated cancer center websites.

Clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) can be particularly complex in oncology, and widespread misconceptions exist about their nature. As a result, visibility and accessibility of information regarding CECS is critical. We investigated the availability and content of information regarding CECS on websites of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and cancer centers (CCs). Each website was reviewed for information on CECS and reviewed for benchmarks partially derived from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities recommendations for CECS. Our analysis revealed that of 70 NCI-designated center websites, 38 had information on CECS, and 17 were found directly on these sites. When CECS information was available, most websites provided a mission statement (71%) and an explanation of what constitutes an ethics consult (74%). Few provided a description of the consult process (45%) or service membership (39%). Our findings reveal a significant gap in CECS visibility on the websites of NCI-designated CCs.

Close contacts of xenograft recipients: Ethical considerations due to risk of xenozoonosis.

With decades of pre-clinical studies culminating in the recent clinical application of xenotransplantation, it would appear timely to provide recommendations for operationalizing oversight of xenotransplantation clinical trials. Ethical issues with clinical xenotransplantation have been described for decades, largely centering on animal welfare, the risks posed to the recipient, and public health risks posed by potential spread of xenozoonosis. Much less attention has been given to considerations relating to potentially elevated risks faced by those who may care for or otherwise have close contact with xenograft recipients. This paper examines the ethical and logistical issues raised by the potential exposure to xenozoonotic disease faced by close contacts of xenotransplant recipients-defined herein as including but not limited to caregivers, household contacts, and sexual partners-which warrants special attention given their increased risk of exposure to infection compared to the general public. We discuss implications of assent or consent by these close contacts to potentially undergo, along with the recipient, procedures for infection screening and possible quarantine. We then propose several options and recommendations for operationalizing oversight of xenotransplantation clinical trials that could account for and address close contacts' education on and agency regarding the risk of xenozoonosis.

COVID-19 critical care triage across Canada: a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial triage protocols.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic created conditions of scarcity that led many provinces within Canada to develop triage protocols for critical care resources. In this study, we sought to undertake a narrative synthesis and ethical analysis of early provincial pandemic triage protocols. METHODS: We collected provincial triage protocols through personal correspondence with academic and political stakeholders between June and August 2020. Protocol data were extracted independently by two researchers and compared for accuracy and agreement. We separated data into three categories for comparative content analysis: protocol development, ethical framework, and protocol content. Our ethical analysis was informed by a procedural justice framework. RESULTS: We obtained a total of eight provincial triage protocols. Protocols were similar in content, although age, physiologic scores, and functional status were variably incorporated. Most protocols were developed through a multidisciplinary, expert-driven, consensus process, and many were informed by influenza pandemic guidelines previously developed in Ontario. All protocols employed tiered morality-focused exclusion criteria to determine scarce resource allocation at the level of regional health care systems. None included a public engagement phase, although targeted consultation with public advocacy groups and relevant stakeholders was undertaken in select provinces. Most protocols were not publicly available in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Early provincial COVID-19 triage protocols were developed by dedicated expert committees under challenging circumstances. Nonetheless, few were publicly available, and public consultation was limited. No protocols were ever implemented, including during periods of extreme critical care surge. A national approach to pandemic triage that incorporates additional aspects of procedural justice should be considered in preparation for future pandemics.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La pandémie de COVID-19 a créé des conditions de pénurie qui ont amené de nombreuses provinces canadiennes à élaborer des protocoles de triage pour l'allocation des ressources en soins intensifs. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous avons cherché à réaliser une synthèse narrative et une analyse éthique des premiers protocoles provinciaux de triage lors de la pandémie. MéTHODE: Nous avons recueilli les protocoles de triage provinciaux en correspondant de façon personnelle avec des intervenant·es universitaires et politiques entre juin et août 2020. Les données des protocoles ont été extraites indépendamment par deux personnes de l'équipe de recherche et comparées pour en vérifier l'exactitude et la concordance. Nous avons séparé les données en trois catégories pour l'analyse comparative du contenu : l'élaboration d'un protocole, le cadre éthique et le contenu du protocole. Notre analyse éthique s'est appuyée sur un cadre de justice procédurale. RéSULTATS: Nous avons obtenu un total de huit protocoles de triage provinciaux. Les protocoles étaient similaires dans leur contenu, bien que l'âge, les scores physiologiques et l'état fonctionnel aient été incorporés de manière variable. La plupart des protocoles ont été élaborés dans le cadre d'un processus consensuel multidisciplinaire dirigé par des expert·es, et bon nombre d'entre eux ont été élaborés en fonction des lignes directrices sur la pandémie de grippe élaborées antérieurement en Ontario. Tous les protocoles utilisaient des critères d'exclusion à plusieurs niveaux axés sur la moralité pour déterminer l'affectation de ressources limitées au niveau des systèmes de soins de santé régionaux. Aucun ne comportait de phase de mobilisation du public, bien que des consultations ciblées aient été menées auprès des groupes de défense des droits du public et des instances concernées dans certaines provinces. La plupart des protocoles n'étaient pas accessibles au public en 2020. CONCLUSION: Les premiers protocoles provinciaux de triage pour la COVID-19 ont été élaborés par des comités spécialisés d'expert·es dans des circonstances difficiles. Néanmoins, peu d'entre eux étaient accessibles au public et la consultation publique était limitée. Aucun protocole n'a été mis en œuvre, même pendant les périodes de pointe extrême en soins intensifs. Une approche nationale du triage en cas de pandémie qui intègre d'autres aspects de justice procédurale devrait être envisagée en prévision de futures pandémies.

Is Suffering a Useless Concept?

"Suffering" is a central concept within bioethics and often a crucial consideration in medical decision making. As used in practice, however, the concept risks being uninformative, ambiguous, or even misleading. In this paper, we consider a series of cases in which "suffering" is invoked and analyze them in light of prominent theories of suffering. We then outline ethical hazards that arise as a result of imprecise usage of the concept and offer practical recommendations for avoiding them. Appeals to suffering are often getting at something ethically important. But this is where the work of ethics begins, not where it ends.

The ethics of overriding patient refusals during 5150s and other involuntary psychiatric holds.

Involuntary psychiatric holds, such as the 5150 hold in California, allow for an individual to be taken into custody for evaluation and treatment for up to 72 h when they present a risk of danger to themselves. 5150s and other coerced holds present a bioethical tension as patient autonomy is overridden to provide psychiatric care. I discuss two arguments that aim to provide ethical justifications for overriding patient autonomy during 5150 holds: the "clinical benefit" and "lack of capacity" arguments. By demonstrating that these arguments do not always hold, I argue that overriding patient autonomy during 5150 holds is not always ethical and can be harmful. Lastly, I make recommendations for the 5150 and similar involuntary psychiatric holds to minimize harmful breaches of patient dignity: creating consistent field guidelines for assessing prehospital capacity, educating prehospital providers about the potential harms of 5150s, and utilizing existing support structures within the social context of the patient when they have capacity to refuse further prehospital care.

Autonomy, power, and place: Ethical considerations at the intersections of substance use care, and the sex trade.

Substance use disorder (SUD) care among women in the sex trade poses multiple ethical challenges. We propose a framework with three lenses-autonomy, power, and place-that can inform and help improve more ethical clinical care for people who trade sex seeking SUD treatment. A relational perspective on autonomy, an analysis of power relations in the clinic, and a geographical analysis can inform how we create space for people with experience in the sex trade in substance use treatment facilities and beyond. We conclude with some practical applications of this framework, all while integrating a composite clinical vignette throughout our analysis. This analysis addresses a clinical and ethical gap in ways to provide better care for women in the sex trade, an understudied and chronically marginalized population deserving of care that meets them where they are.

Translational bioethics as a two-way street. Developing clinical ethics support instruments with and for healthcare practitioners.

This article discusses an approach to translational bioethics (TB) that is concerned with the adaptation-or 'translation'-of concepts, theories and methods from bioethics to practical contexts, in order to support 'non-bioethicists', such as researchers and healthcare practitioners, in dealing with their ethical issues themselves. Specifically, it goes into the participatory development of clinical ethics support (CES) instruments that respond to the needs and wishes of healthcare practitioners and that are tailored to the specific care contexts in which they are to be used. The theoretical underpinnings of this participatory approach to TB are found in hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. As an example, the development of CURA, a low-threshold CES instrument for healthcare professionals in palliative care, is discussed. From this example, it becomes clear that TB is a two-way street. Practice may be improved by means of CES that is effectively tailored to specific end users and care contexts. The other way around, ethical theory may be enriched by means of the insights gained from engaging with practice in developing CES in a process of co-creation. TB is also a two-way street in the sense that it requires collaboration and commitment of both bioethicists and practitioners, who engage in a process of mutual learning. However, substantial challenges remain. For instance, is there a limit to the extent to which a method of moral reasoning can be adapted in order to meet the constraints of a given healthcare setting? Who is to decide, the bioethicist or the practitioners?

Implementation of advance care planning in the routine care for acutely admitted patients in geriatric units: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acutely ill and frail older adults and their next of kin are often poorly involved in treatment and care decisions. This may lead to either over- or undertreatment and unnecessary burdens. The aim of this project is to improve user involvement and health services for frail older adults living at home, and their relatives, by implementing advance care planning (ACP) in selected hospital wards, and to evaluate the clinical and the implementation interventions. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized trial with 12 hospital units. The intervention arm receives implementation support for 18 months; control units receive the same support afterwards. The ACP intervention consists of 1. Clinical intervention: ACP; 2. Implementation interventions: Implementation team, ACP coordinator, network meetings, training and supervision for health care personnel, documentation tools and other resources, and fidelity measurements with tailored feedback; 3. Implementation strategies: leadership commitment, whole ward approach and responsive evaluation. Fidelity will be measured three times in the intervention arm and twice in the control arm. Here, the primary outcome is the difference in fidelity changes between the arms. We will also include 420 geriatric patients with one close relative and an attending clinician in a triadic sub-study. Here, the primary outcomes are quality of communication and decision-making when approaching the end of life as perceived by patients and next of kin, and congruence between the patient's preferences for information and involvement and the clinician's perceptions of the same. For patients we will also collect clinical data and health register data. Additionally, all clinical staff in both arms will be invited to answer a questionnaire before and during the implementation period. To explore barriers and facilitators and further explore the significance of ACP, qualitative interviews will be performed in the intervention units with patients, next of kin, health care personnel and implementation teams, and with other stakeholders up to national level. Lastly, we will evaluate resource utilization, costs and health outcomes in a cost-effectiveness analysis. DISCUSSION: The project may contribute to improved implementation of ACP as well as valuable knowledge and methodological developments in the scientific fields of ACP, health service research and implementation science. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05681585. Registered 03.01.23.

Ethical and practical considerations of pediatric refusal in clinical anesthesia: An educational review.

Children commonly refuse induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia providers must then decide whether to honor the child's dissent or to proceed over objection. In some circumstances, a forced induction involves restraining the child, incurring both practical and ethical harms to the patient-provider encounter. This educational review explores the practical dilemma encountered when a child dissents to induction of anesthesia. In the course of exploring this dilemma, dissent and associated terms are defined and compared, and the prominent ethical underpinnings regarding pediatric decision-making are described to clarify dissent as an ethical and practical concept. Important legal and professional standards are summarized, and practice trends are discussed to depict the current state of practice, including novel approaches to honoring pediatric dissent for elective surgeries. This information is then used to invite providers to consider where they ethically situate themselves within a legally and professionally defined space of acceptable practice. Finally, these considerations are synthesized to discuss important nuances regarding pediatric refusal, and some key questions are presented for clinicians to ponder as they consider their practice of choosing whether to honor pediatric dissent at induction.

Exploration of clinical ethics consultation in Uganda: a case study of Uganda Cancer Institute.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESSs) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence about mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda. METHODS: This phenomenological qualitative study utilized in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook. RESULTS: The study revealed there was no formal committee or mechanism dedicated to resolving ethical dilemmas at the UCI. Instead, ethical dilemmas were addressed in six forums: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings (MMMs), core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas. CONCLUSION: The fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics.

What are the views of Quebec and Ontario citizens on the tiebreaker criteria for prioritizing access to adult critical care in the extreme context of a COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The prioritization protocols for accessing adult critical care in the extreme pandemic context contain tiebreaker criteria to facilitate decision-making in the allocation of resources between patients with a similar survival prognosis. Besides being controversial, little is known about the public acceptability of these tiebreakers. In order to better understand the public opinion, Quebec and Ontario's protocols were presented to the public in a democratic deliberation during the summer of 2022. OBJECTIVES: (1) To explore the perspectives of Quebec and Ontario citizens regarding tiebreakers, identifying the most acceptable ones and their underlying values. (2) To analyze these results considering other public consultations held during the pandemic on these criteria. METHODS: This was an exploratory qualitative study. The design involved an online democratic deliberation that took place over two days, simultaneously in Quebec and Ontario. Public participants were selected from a community sample which excluded healthcare workers. Participants were first presented the essential components of prioritization protocols and their related issues (training session day 1). They subsequently deliberated on the acceptability of these criteria (deliberation session day 2). The deliberation was then subject to thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 47 participants from the provinces of Quebec (n = 20) and Ontario (n = 27) took part in the online deliberation. A diverse audience participated excluding members of the healthcare workforce. Four themes were identified: (1) Priority to young patients - the life cycle - a preferred tiebreaker; (2) Randomization - a tiebreaker of last resort; (3) Multiplier effect of most exposed healthcare workers - a median acceptability tiebreaker, and (4) Social value - a less acceptable tiebreaker. CONCLUSION: Life cycle was the preferred tiebreaker as this criterion respects intergenerational equity, which was considered relevant when allocating scarce resources to adult patients in a context of extreme pandemic. Priority to young patients is in line with other consultations conducted around the world. Additional studies are needed to further investigate the public acceptability of tiebreaker criteria.

The Diversity Compass: a clinical ethics support instrument for dialogues on diversity in healthcare organizations.

BACKGROUND: Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice. METHODS: We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation. RESULTS: The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur. CONCLUSIONS: The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations.

Factors associated with Saudi physicians' utilization of clinical ethics consultation services.

Clinical Ethics Consultation (CEC) aims to resolve ethical dilemmas at the bedside. Through a structured process, CEC allows practitioners and patients to consult ethicists at times of moral conflict or uncertainty. Over the past few decades, CEC has become an invaluable part of healthcare practice. In Saudi Arabia, however, CEC services remain inexplicably underutilized. This study attempts to understand the factors associated with Saudi physicians' utilization of CEC to better meet the needs of practitioners and patients. Results indicate that although physicians routinely experience moral dilemmas, they seldom request a CEC. This is not due to unfamiliarity, lack of accessibility, or suspicion of ethical expertise. Rather, reluctance is likely due to an ingrained medical cultural stronghold that pressures practitioners to act heroically, and to resolve ethical dilemmas independently. Recommendations to improve the utilization of CEC services include wider availability, active collaborations with clinical practitioners, routine quality improvements, and managerial and national support.

A Qualitative Research Survey on Cardiologist's Ethical Stance in Cases of Moral Dilemmas in Cardiology Clinics.

This study sought to determine cardiologists' degrees of ethical awareness and preferred courses of action for ethical dilemmas frequently encountered in clinical settings. For this evaluation, an online survey was created and sent to cardiologists affiliated with various academic posts in Ankara, Turkey. The survey included ten cases with various ethical considerations selected from our book, "Clinic Ethics with Cases from Cardiology." Four possible action choices were defined for each case. Participants were asked to choose one or more of these preferences. In addition, a fictional change was made in each case's context without changing the original ethical issue, and participants were asked whether an attitude different from the first chosen one was preferred. The participation ratio was 49/185 (26%), consent ratio 47/185 (25,4%), and completion ratio 44/185 (23,7%). Nine of the ten scenario changes did not change participants' preferred action. For most questions, action preferences were concentrated between the two options. Although legal regulations did not reduce ethical dilemmas, they clarified physicians' action preferences. Similarly, as an obscure moral issue gained prominence, physicians were forced to draw clearer lines in their actions. External factors such as healthcare emergencies can change physicians' ethical dilemma-solving attitudes.

[The Basel model of principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation 2.0 : An introduction for psychiatry]. / Das Basler Modell der prinzipienorientierten klinischen Ethikkonsultation 2.0 : Eine Einführung für die Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of clinical ethics counselling in medicine in terms of satisfaction of the participants, support of ethical decision-making, perceived impact on clinical care, moral competence and quality of communication is now empirically well validated. In psychiatry, more and more institutions have structures for clinical ethics consultation as well; however, there is still a lack of evaluative accompanying research on the benefits and differential indications of the various forms and models of clinical ethics counselling in psychiatry. AIM OF THE WORK: The article presents the principles and the step by step application of the principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation according to the Basel model 2.0. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The article is based on material and procedures developed at the Clinical Ethics Unit of the University Hospital Basel and the University Psychiatric Clinics Basel for the principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation according to the Basel model 2.0. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation according to the Basel model 2.0 is suitable for dealing with moral issues and conflicts in psychiatric practice and for their ethical reflection; however, further evaluative accompanying research is needed on the benefits and differential indications of this and other models of clinical ethics support in psychiatry.

Toward a Social Bioethics Through Interpretivism: A Framework for Healthcare Ethics.

Recent global events demonstrate that analytical frameworks to aid professionals in healthcare ethics must consider the pervasive role of social structures in the emergence of bioethical issues. To address this, the authors propose a new sociologically informed approach to healthcare ethics that they term "social bioethics." Their approach is animated by the interpretive social sciences to highlight how social structures operate vis-à-vis the everyday practices and moral reasoning of individuals, a phenomenon known as social discourse. As an exemplar, the authors use social bioethics to reframe common ethical issues in psychiatric services and discuss potential implications. Lastly, the authors discuss how social bioethics illuminates the ways healthcare ethics consultants in both policy and clinical decision-making participate in and shape broader social, political, and economic systems, which then cyclically informs the design and delivery of healthcare.

Nursing students' attitude toward euthanasia following its legalization in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Euthanasia is a controversial practice in many countries. Since Spain's Euthanasia Law came into effect on March 24, 2021, healthcare providers have faced a new challenge since they must inform patients, provide care, accompany them, and implement the law. It also represents a new stumbling block at universities, which must adapt to regulatory changes and educate future professionals accordingly. Little is known about the attitude of nursing students in Spain toward euthanasia since this law was implemented. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to answer the following research questions: What is the attitude of nursing students toward euthanasia? What factors influence this attitude? RESEARCH DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: The study population comprised all nursing students at a public university in Barcelona (n = 444), Spain, during the 2022-2023 academic year. The validated Spanish version of the Euthanasia Attitude Scale was employed. A bivariate analysis was performed. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The university Ethics Committee (CEEAH 6247) approved this study. All participating students signed an informed consent form. Participation was voluntary, and data anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four nursing students responded to the questionnaire. The mean total score was 79.64. Participants with religious beliefs presented lower scores, indicating a more negative attitude toward euthanasia. Participants in their second, third, or fourth year of the nursing degree scored higher, demonstrating a more positive attitude. CONCLUSIONS: The attitude of nursing students toward euthanasia was remarkably positive. Working on ethical content during the degree course and clinical practice are factors that help to develop a more positive attitude. In addition, nursing education should encourage professional aspects to prevail over religious beliefs in euthanasia situations.

Stretching oneself too thin and facing ethical challenges: Healthcare professionals' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUNDS: Most countries are facing increased pressure on healthcare resources. A better understanding of how healthcare providers respond to new demands is relevant for future pandemics and other crises. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore what nurses and doctors in Norway reported as their main ethical challenges during two periods of the COVID-19 pandemic: February 2021 and February 2022. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal repeated cross-sectional study was conducted in the Western health region of Norway. The survey included an open-ended question about ethical challenges among doctors and nurses in hospital departments. Free-text comments were analysed using Systematic Text Condensation and also presented in a frequency table. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131,421). All participants provided consent when participating in the study. RESULTS: In 2021, 249 and in 2022, 163 healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended question. Nurses and doctors reported three main categories of ethical challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) barriers that hindered them in acting as they ethically would have wanted to do; (2) priority-setting dilemmas linked to overtreatment, transfer of resources and ranking patient needs; and (3) workload expansion threatening work-life balance and employees' health. Category one comprised of resource barriers, regulatory barriers, system barriers, and personal barriers. Regulatory barriers, especially visitor restrictions for next-of-kin, were the most frequently reported in 2021. Resource barriers, related to the increased scarcity of qualified staff, were most frequently reported in 2022. Clinicians stretched themselves thin to avoid compromising on care, diagnostics, or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Developing clinicians' ability to handle and cope with limited healthcare resources is necessary. To foster resilience and sustainability, healthcare leaders, in collaboration with their staff, should ensure fair priority-setting and initiate reflections among doctors and nurses on what it implies to provide 'good enough' care.

Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence use in nursing informatics.

Artificial intelligence revolutionizes nursing informatics and healthcare by enhancing patient outcomes and healthcare access while streamlining nursing workflow. These advancements, while promising, have sparked debates on traditional nursing ethics like patient data handling and implicit bias. The key to unlocking the next frontier in holistic nursing care lies in nurses navigating the delicate balance between artificial intelligence and the core values of empathy and compassion. Mindful utilization of artificial intelligence coupled with an unwavering ethical commitment by nurses may transform the very essence of nursing.

[Human dignity and autonomy in medicoethical decisions at the end of life]. / Menschenwürde und Autonomie bei medizinethischen Entscheidungen am Lebensende.

Respect of human dignity is an unquestionable part of daily clinical routine as well as of evaluations in medical ethics. Some aspects of human dignity are a subject of transformation in the course of a lifetime. If the ability to form a will is reduced, it might be difficult to satisfy the individual perception of a dignified treatment, which is of particular interest in terminal care. As illustrated by the presented case report, moral problems can arise when the patient's present verbal or non-verbal expressions are opposed to what is documented or what is estimated by dependants to be the individual's will. In clinical decision-making processes, the determination of the will via an advance directive can be overstated, which can go so far that human dignity is reduced to autonomy. A concept of dignity reduced to autonomy misses the point not only of a dignity-centered medical care but also of shared decision-making. In situations at the end of life other aspects, such as authenticity or self-actualization should be considered when respecting the individual's dignity. Medicine should as such not marginalize death but provide a care based on principles that focus on human interaction and respect for a comprehensive concept of dignity.