Experiencing Community in a Covid Surge.

As I organize a pile of ethics consult chart notes in New York City in mid-April 2020, I look at the ten cases that I have co-consulted on recently. Nine of the patients were found to be Covid positive. The reasons for the consults are mostly familiar-surrogate decision-making, informed refusal of treatment, goals of care, defining futility. But the context is unfamiliar and unsettling. Bioethicists are in pandemic mode, dusting off and revising triage plans. Patients and potential patients are fearful-of the disease itself and of the amplification of health disparities and inequities. There is much to contemplate, but as I go through my cases, I worry about disability, about biases and racist stereotypes. In this pandemic, historically marginalized communities are at risk of further disenfranchisement.

Rawlsian Justice and Palliative Care.

Palliative care serves both as an integrated part of treatment and as a last effort to care for those we cannot cure. The extent to which palliative care should be provided and our reasons for doing so have been curiously overlooked in the debate about distributive justice in health and healthcare. We argue that one prominent approach, the Rawlsian approach developed by Norman Daniels, is unable to provide such reasons and such care. This is because of a central feature in Daniels' account, namely that care should be provided to restore people's opportunities. Daniels' view is both unable to provide pain relief to those who need it as a supplement to treatment and, without justice-based reasons to provide palliative care to those whose opportunities cannot be restored. We conclude that this makes Daniels' framework much less attractive.

Using personal health information: do we manage conflicting interests?

The discipline of health informatics is concerned with developing the information systems that facilitate collection, manipulation and dissemination of personal health information. It promotes the benefits of using personal health information for secondary purposes, including policy development, service planning and research. At the same time the health informatics community is a strong advocate of privacy and the need to protect individuals from negative consequences arising from unauthorised use of their personal health information. This creates a dilemma for health informatics professionals since there will be occasions when the rights and interests of individuals conflict with the rights and interests of the public, or particular sections of the public. In such instances, the community as a whole, and individual members, may be required to take a stance on whether to prioritise privacy over public needs and interests. Such instances are likely to increase in the future as demands for access to personal health information increase. This paper considers the way the health informatics community approaches the dilemma. It reports on a study which analysed various perspectives on the issue as expressed in HISA conference proceedings. The study identified six discourses, each of which focuses on different uses of personal health information. The study found that the discourses expressed strong support for expanded use of personal health information where the public interest was convincingly argued, although the interpretation of what constituted public interest varied between the discourses. The study also found that while higher level discussions highlight the potential for negative consequences arising from expanded uses of personal health information, this was not often discussed in the conference texts. It is argued that such concerns should be considered, particularly in the light of discussions around the Commonwealth government's Individual Health Identifier and Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records initiatives.

Professionalism: challenges for dentistry in the future.

While countries varies significantly in the financing of dental care, they are much more alike in the delivery of dentistry. Dental care is principally provided in dental offices and clinics that are independent business entities whose business leaders are most often the dentists themselves. However society expects from dentists a level of professionalism (i.e. habitually acting ethically, both in terms of competence and conduct) in contrast to the methods and motivations of the marketplace. This is why the single most important challenge of dental professional ethics continues to be giving proper priority to patients' well being and building ethically correct decision-making relationships with patients while, at the same time, trying to maintain a successful business operation. If we look into dentistry's future, the centrality of this aspect of professional ethics is not likely to change, although the ways in which dentists might violate this trust will probably multiple as funding mechanisms become increasingly complex. It is important that dentists reflect with fresh eyes on their ethical commitments. One challenge is the increased availability of oral health information to the public and the fact that so many people are uncritical of the accuracy of information in the media and on the web. A second is the increase in the amount of health care advertising in many societies. A third is the growth of aesthetic dentistry that differs from standard oral health care in important and ethically significant ways. The fourth is insurance that frequently complicates the explanation of a patient's treatment alternatives and often brings a third party into the treatment decision relationship. The ethical challenges of each of these factors will be considered and ultimately tying it to the central theme of dental professionalism.

Ethical marketing in'aesthetic' ('esthetic') or'cosmetic dentistry'. Part 1.

UNLABELLED: Prior to undertaking any elective,'cosmetic' dental procedures, it is vital for the treating dentist to discuss the merits and drawbacks of all viable options. It is important that the patient understands what the consequences and limitations of treatment are likely to be, and what the potential failures could entail later in his/her life. Informed consent should be obtained (preferably in writing) and the clinical notes and records should be clearly documented, with accurate and concise details provided of all the investigations carried out, and their findings, as well as including details of the various discussions that have taken place. Dentists need to be aware of the existence of heightened expectations in this group of patients and be cautious about accepting patients who have unrealistic 'cosmetic' expectations. Where possible, cosmetic or aesthetic dental treatment should be provided which is minimally destructive and, in the long-term, be in the 'best interests' of the patient. Important matters such as the gaining of informed consent and maintaining meticulous, contemporaneous dental records will also be emphasized. It is hoped that the article will provide clear definitions of some commonly used terms such as 'ethical marketing', 'ethics', and 'values', which are often used in association with the marketing, planning and undertaking of supposedly 'cosmetic' dental procedures. The important role of less invasive alternative treatment options will also be emphasized. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The aims of this article are to consider the common pitfalls that may arise when contemplating the marketing and provision of invasive,'cosmetic, dental restorations and to discuss how best to avoid a dento-legal claim where such treatment plans may not fulfil the patient's desired outcome.

Evaluating a patient's request for life-prolonging treatment: an ethical framework.

Contrary to the widespread concern about over-treatment at the end of life, today, patient preferences for palliative care at the end of life are frequently respected. However, ethically challenging situations in the current healthcare climate are, instead, situations in which a competent patient requests active treatment with the goal of life-prolongation while the physician suggests best supportive care only. The argument of futility has often been used to justify unilateral decisions made by physicians to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, we argue that neither the concept of futility nor that of patient autonomy alone is apt for resolving situations in which physicians are confronted with patients' requests for active treatment. Instead, we integrate the relevant arguments that have been put forward in the academic discussion about 'futile' treatment into an ethical algorithm with five guiding questions: (1) Is there a chance that medical intervention will be effective in achieving the patient's treatment goal? (2) How does the physician evaluate the expected benefit and the potential harm of the treatment? (3) Does the patient understand his or her medical situation? (4) Does the patient prefer receiving treatment after evaluating the benefit-harm ratio and the costs? (5) Does the treatment require many resources? This algorithm shall facilitate approaching patients' requests for treatments deemed futile by the physician in a systematic way, and responding to these requests in an ethically appropriate manner. It thereby adds substantive considerations to the current procedural approaches of conflict resolution in order to improve decision making among physicians, patients and families.

A capacity-based approach for addressing ancillary care needs: implications for research in resource limited settings.

A paediatric clinical trial conducted in a developing country is likely to encounter conditions or illnesses in participants unrelated to the study. Since local healthcare resources may be inadequate to meet these needs, research clinicians may face the dilemma of deciding when to provide ancillary care and to what extent. The authors propose a model for identifying ancillary care obligations that draws on assessments of urgency, the capacity of the local healthcare infrastructure and the capacity of the research infrastructure. The model lends itself to a decision tree that can be adapted to the local context and resources so as to provide procedural guidance. This approach can help in planning and establishing organisational policies that govern the provision of ancillary care.

Different labs.

In this case a young dentist has signed onto a managed care plan that has several attractive features. Eventually, however, he notices that he makes little or no net revenue for some of the work that he does. A colleague recommends that he use different labs for different patients, with labs matched to each patient's dental plan and coverage. Offshore labs are used for managed care patients. Three knowledgeable experts comment on the case, two with many years of private practice experience, two who are dental educators holding master's degrees in philosophy and bioethics.

[The ethical, legislative and regulatory basis of therapeutic education]. / Les fondements éthiques, législatifs et réglementaires de l'éducation thérapeutique.

Beyond its interest in the field of public health and the political aspect with the "Hospital, patients, health and territories" law, therapeutic education now occupies an important place in nursing care. This new nursing culture provides another clinical approach for the nurse and a real means of learning for the patient in the framework of a support and guidance plan drawn up together.

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Australia: a national audit highlights gaps in care and medico-legal risk for clinicians.

AIM: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is accepted as best practice in cancer treatment planning and care. Despite recognition of the importance of a team approach, limited data are available about the extent to which MDC has been implemented in Australia. The aim of the audit was to investigate the implementation of MDC for five main cancer types across Australia in line with best practice. METHODS: A sample of 155 hospitals was surveyed to investigate the status of MDC for cancer treatment planning in Australia across five cancer types (breast, gynecological, lung, prostate and colorectal). The survey investigated team structure, meetings, patient consent, documentation of team recommendations and communication with the patient. RESULTS: Two-thirds of hospitals surveyed did not have a multidisciplinary team. Of those with such a team; in one-third patients were not informed their case would be discussed by the team, in half patient consent was not sought for all cases discussed by the team, in one-quarter the team's recommended treatment plan was not noted in the patient record. Less than 1% of teams reported routine attendance by the tumour-specific minimum core team. CONCLUSION: MDC is not being implemented in line with best practice or applied consistently across Australia. This audit has highlighted gaps in care delivery, despite national recommendations about MDC. Areas being neglected can affect the quality of care provided and may put clinicians at medico-legal risk. Recommendations to improve uptake and effectiveness of MDC are provided.