Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A stakeholder meeting exploring the ethical perspectives of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery.
Quinn, Matthew; Gray, Daniel; Bardan, Ahmed Shalaby; Zarei-Ghanavati, Mehran; Sparrow, John; Liu, Christopher.
Afiliação
  • Quinn M; Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust, Bath and North East Somerset, Bath, UK.
  • Gray D; School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
  • Bardan AS; Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, East Sussex, UK.
  • Zarei-Ghanavati M; Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, The Islamic Republic of Iran.
  • Sparrow J; Bristol Eye Hospital, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, Somerset, UK.
  • Liu C; Sussex Eye Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, East Sussex, UK cscliu@aol.com.
J Med Ethics ; 2020 Sep 21.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32958695
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The purported benefits and risks of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) have been well described, yet the procedure remains controversial among UK ophthalmologists. As many of the controversies of ISBCS are underpinned by ethical dilemmas, the aim of this work was to explore the ethical perspectives of ISBCS from a variety of stakeholder viewpoints.

METHOD:

A semi-structured independent stakeholder meeting was convened at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists London headquarters in June 2018. In total, 29 stakeholders attended the meeting. The professional characteristics of stakeholders included but were not limited to ophthalmologists (9), patients (5), religious leaders (4), ethicists (2), lawyers (2) and commissioners (1). Thematic qualitative analysis using methodology proposed by Braun and Clarke was conducted on the resultant transcript of the discussion.

RESULTS:

Themes identified include (1) beneficence and non-maleficence (patient benefits, patient risks, the uncertainties of risk, patient interpretation of the risk-benefit analysis); (2) autonomy (informed consent, the barriers to communication); (3) distributive justice (the allocation of resources the individual vs the collective).

CONCLUSION:

This analysis provides a reference point for the ethical factors surrounding ISBCS. The stakeholders concluded that this approach was an ethical undertaking provided patient autonomy was appropriately attained. This requires a patient's interpretation of the risk-benefit balance, which must include an understanding of the low but unquantifiable risk of severe complications. A surgeon must aim to minimise risks through the adaption of accepted surgical protocols and by performing appropriate patient selection. Currently, cost savings to healthcare that may occur following the implementation of ISBCS should be considered a secondary benefit of the protocol.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Idioma: En Revista: J Med Ethics Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Idioma: En Revista: J Med Ethics Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Reino Unido