Becoming Inclusive: Actionable Steps to Diversify the Field of Clinical Ethics.

At the 2022 Clinical Ethics Unconference, the authors perceived a significant lack of racial and ethnic diversity, which was consistent with their experiences in other clinical ethics settings. As a result, they convened a working group to address the pervasive lack of diversity present in the field of clinical ethics and to propose strategies to increase the representation of people from racial and ethnic minority populations. This article identifies the harms associated with the lack of diversity in the healthcare setting and translates these to the field of clinical ethics. The article then proposes a framework that may be used to help diversify the field of clinical ethics. Specifically, the authors identify existing barriers to appropriate diversity, actionable steps to increase diversity, and tools the field can utilize to systematically assess its progress with respect to achieving diversity.

In This Together: Navigating Ethical Challenges Posed by Family Clustering during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Harrowing stories reported in the media describe Covid-19 ravaging through families. This essay reports professional experiences of this phenomenon, family clustering, as encountered during the pandemic's spread across Southern California. We identify three ethical challenges following from it: Family clustering impedes shared decision-making by reducing available surrogate decision-makers for incapacitated patients, increases the emotional burdens of surrogate decision-makers, and exacerbates health disparities for and the suffering of people of color at increased likelihood of experiencing family clustering. We propose that, in response to these challenges, efforts in advance care planning be expanded, emotional support offered to surrogates and family members be increased, more robust state guidance be issued on ethical decision-making for unrepresented patients, ethics consultation be increased in the setting of conflict following from family clustering dynamics, and health care professionals pay more attention to systemic and personal racial biases and inequities that affect patient care and the surrogate experience.

Comprehensive Quality Assessment in Clinical Ethics.

Scholars and professional organizations in bioethics describe various approaches to "quality assessment" in clinical ethics. Although much of this work represents significant contributions to the literature, it is not clear that there is a robust and shared understanding of what constitutes "quality" in clinical ethics, what activities should be measured when tracking clinical ethics work, and what metrics should be used when measuring those activities. Further, even the most robust quality assessment efforts to date are idiosyncratic, in that they represent evaluation of single activities or domains of clinical ethics activities, or a range of activities at a single hospital or healthcare system. Countering this trend, iin this article we propose a framework for moving beyond our current ways of understanding clinical ethics quality, toward comprehensive quality assessment. We first describe a way to conceptualize quality assessment as a process of measuring disparate, isolated work activities; then, we describe quality assessment in terms of tracking interconnected work activities holistically, across different levels of assessment. We conclude by inviting future efforts in quality improvement to adopt a comprehensive approach to quality assessment into their improvement practices, and offer recommendations for how the field might move in this direction.

Ethical Dilemmas Encountered by Health Care Providers Caring for Marshallese Migrants in Northwest Arkansas.

Marshallese migrating to the United States face numerous challenges in accessing health care and managing illness and chronic disease. This study explores health care providers' perceptions of and experiences with ethical dilemmas as they care for Marshallese patients. Utilizing a qualitative research design, we interviewed 21 providers to explore the ethical dilemmas they encountered while treating Marshallese patients. We used the framework of bioethical principlism to categorize and describe the ethical dilemmas reported by those providers. When explicitly asked whether they experienced such situations, approximately half (10/21) affirmed that they had, and analysis of the qualitative data indicated that all interviewees described an ethical dilemma at least once during their interviews. We characterized providers' ethical dilemmas in terms of conflicts that arise when prioritizing different ethical principles in the care of this complex patient population, including the principles of respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice.

How clinicians discuss critically ill patients' preferences and values with surrogates: an empirical analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although shared decision making requires clinicians to discuss the patient's values and preferences, little is known about the extent to which this occurs with surrogates in ICUs. We sought to assess whether and how clinicians talk with surrogates about incapacitated patients' preferences and values. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five ICUs of two hospitals. SUBJECTS: Fifty-four physicians and 159 surrogates for 71 patients. INTERVENTIONS: We audio-recorded 71 conferences in which clinicians and surrogates discussed life-sustaining treatment decisions for an incapacitated patient near the end of life. Two coders independently coded each instance in which clinicians or surrogates discussed the patient's previously expressed treatment preferences or values. They subcoded for values that are commonly important to patients near the end of life. They also coded treatment recommendations by clinicians that incorporated the patient's preferences or values. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In 30% of conferences, there was no discussion about the patient's previously expressed preferences or values. In 37%, clinicians and surrogates discussed both the patient's treatment preferences and values. In the remaining 33%, clinicians and surrogates discussed either the patient's treatment preferences or values, but not both. In more than 88% of conferences, there was no conversation about the patient's values regarding autonomy and independence, emotional well-being and relationships, physical function, cognitive function, or spirituality. On average, 3.8% (SD, 4.3; range, 0-16%) of words spoken pertained to patient preferences or values. CONCLUSIONS: In roughly a third of ICU family conferences for patients at high risk of death, neither clinicians nor surrogates discussed patients' preferences or values about end-of-life decision making. In less than 12% of conferences did participants address values of high importance to most patients, such as cognitive and physical function. Interventions are needed to ensure patients' values and preferences are elicited and integrated into end-of-life decisions in ICUs.

What justifies the United States ban on federal funding for nonreproductive cloning?

This paper explores how current United States policies for funding nonreproductive cloning are justified and argues against that justification. I show that a common conceptual framework underlies the national prohibition on the use of public funds for cloning research, which I call the simple argument. This argument rests on two premises: that research harming human embryos is unethical and that embryos produced via fertilization are identical to those produced via cloning. In response to the simple argument, I challenge the latter premise. I demonstrate there are important ontological differences between human embryos (produced via fertilization) and clone embryos (produced via cloning). After considering the implications my argument has for the morality of publicly funding cloning for potential therapeutic purposes and potential responses to my position, I conclude that such funding is not only ethically permissible, but also humane national policy.