Is it ethical to provide IVF add-ons when there is no evidence of a benefit if the patient requests it?

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) 'add-ons' are therapeutic or diagnostic tools developed in an endeavour to improve the success rate of infertility treatment. However, there is no conclusive evidence that these interventions are a beneficial or effective adjunct of assisted reproductive technologies. Additionally, IVF add-ons are often implemented in clinical practice before their safety can be thoroughly ascertained. Yet, patients continue to request and pay large sums for such additional IVF tools. Hence, this essay set out to examine if it is ethical to provide IVF add-ons when there is no evidence of a benefit if the patient requests it. In order to determine what is ethical-namely, morally good and righteous, the question was considered in relation to three key values of medical ethics-autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence. It was determined that providing IVF add-ons might be morally acceptable in specific circumstances, if true informed consent can be given, there is a potential of cost-effective physiological or psychological benefit and the risk of harm is minimal, particularly with regard to the unborn child.

Fast and slow thinking; and the problem of conflating clinical reasoning and ethical deliberation in acute decision-making.

Expertise in a medical specialty requires countless hours of learning and practice and a combination of neural plasticity and contextual case experience resulting in advanced gestalt clinical reasoning. This holistic thinking assimilates complex segmented information and is advantageous for timely clinical decision-making in the emergency department and paediatric or neonatal intensive care units. However, the same agile reasoning that is essential acutely may be at odds with the slow deliberative thought required for ethical reasoning and weighing the probability of patient morbidity. Recent studies suggest that inadequate ethical decision-making results in increased morbidity for patients and that clinical ethics consultation may reduce the inappropriate use of life-sustaining treatment. Behavioural psychology research suggests there are two systems of thinking - fast and slow - that control our thoughts and therefore our actions. The problem for experienced clinicians is that fast thinking, which is instinctual and reflexive, is particularly vulnerable to experiential biases or assumptions. While it has significant utility for clinical reasoning when timely life and death decisions are crucial, I contend it may simultaneously undermine the deliberative slow thought required for ethical reasoning to determine appropriate therapeutic interventions that reduce future patient morbidity. Whilst health-care providers generally make excellent therapeutic choices leading to good outcomes, a type of substitutive thinking that conflates clinical reasoning and ethical deliberation in acute decision-making may impinge on therapeutic relationships, have adverse effects on patient outcomes and inflict lifelong burdens on some children and their families.

How to distinguish medicalization from over-medicalization?

Is medicalization always harmful? When does medicine overstep its proper boundaries? The aim of this article is to outline the pragmatic criteria for distinguishing between medicalization and over-medicalization. The consequences of considering a phenomenon to be a medical problem may take radically different forms depending on whether the problem in question is correctly or incorrectly perceived as a medical issue. Neither indiscriminate acceptance of medicalization of subsequent areas of human existence, nor criticizing new medicalization cases just because they are medicalization can be justified. The article: (i) identifies various consequences of both well-founded medicalization and over-medicalization; (ii) demonstrates that the issue of defining appropriate limits of medicine cannot be solved by creating an optimum model of health; (iii) proposes four guiding questions to help distinguish medicalization from over-medicalization. The article should foster a normative analysis of the phenomenon of medicalization and contribute to the bioethical reflection on the boundaries of medicine.

Analysing the ethics of breast cancer overdiagnosis: a pathogenic vulnerability.

Breast cancer screening aims to help women by early identification and treatment of cancers that might otherwise be life-threatening. However, breast cancer screening also leads to the detection of some cancers that, if left undetected and untreated, would not have damaged the health of the women concerned. At the time of diagnosis, harmless cancers cannot be identified as non-threatening, therefore women are offered invasive breast cancer treatment. This phenomenon of identifying (and treating) non-harmful cancers is called overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is morally problematic as it leads to overall patient harm rather than benefit. Further, breast cancer screening is offered in a context that exaggerates cancer risk and screening benefit, minimises risk of harm and impedes informed choice. These factors combine to create pathogenic vulnerability. That is, breast cancer screening exacerbates rather than reduces women's vulnerability and undermines women's agency. This paper provides an original way of conceptualising agency-supporting responses to the harms of breast cancer overdiagnosis through application of the concept of pathogenic vulnerability.

Did Bioethics Matter? A History of Autonomy, Consent, and Intersex Genital Surgery.

This article argues that the rise of bioethics in the post-WWII era and the emergence of the legal doctrine of informed consent in the late 1950s should have had a greater impact on patients with intersex traits (atypical sex development) than they did, given their emphasis on respect for autonomy and beneficence toward patients. Instead, these progressive trends collided with a turn in intersex management toward infants, who were unable to provide autonomous consent about their medical care. Patient autonomy took a back seat as parents heeded physicians' advice in an environment even more hierarchical than we know today. Intersex care of both infants and adults continues to need improvement. It remains an open question whether the abstract ideals of bioethics-respect, patient autonomy, and the requirement of informed consent-are alone adequate to secure that improvement, or whether legal actions (or the threat of litigation) or some other reforms will be required to effect such change.

Good health checks according to the general public; expectations and criteria: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Health checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks. METHODS: In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government. RESULTS: Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users. CONCLUSIONS: Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.

A 90-year-old man with factious disorder: Separating fact from fiction.

Objective Factitious disorders are known to exist in the medical community but are not commonly diagnosed in clinical practice. The majority of the literature on factitious disorder comes from case reports or case series. This particular case is unusual because it describes a patient who initially presented with purely physical complaints, but over time, the symptoms transitioned into predominantly psychiatric concerns. This case describes the patient's unique presentation and is followed by a discussion of the management of factitious disorder. Methods The patient was seen during the course of an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. Electronic chart review was conducted, and information from each prior hospitalization was gathered between the dates of first initial documented presentation available in the electronic record in 1995 to most recent hospitalization in 2017. Results The patient still continues to present to the emergency department. Upon each presentation, staff work to objectively assess his complaints to be sure that there is no true underlying medical emergency. There is also a focus on providing non-judgmental, supportive, and compassionate care. Conclusion This case highlights the importance of corroborating objective findings with the patient's subjective reports gathered during a history and physical, and to recognize that patients with this disorder can present to any specialty. Thus, the collaboration between specialties is critical in the care of these patients to minimize unnecessary, costly, and sometimes dangerous interventions.

Pediatric Ethics and Communication Excellence (PEACE) Rounds: Decreasing Moral Distress and Patient Length of Stay in the PICU.

This paper describes a practice innovation: the addition of formal weekly discussions of patients with prolonged PICU stay to reduce healthcare providers' moral distress and decrease length of stay for patients with life-threatening illnesses. We evaluated the innovation using a pre/post intervention design measuring provider moral distress and comparing patient outcomes using retrospective historical controls. Physicians and nurses on staff in our pediatric intensive care unit in a quaternary care children's hospital participated in the evaluation. There were 60 patients in the interventional group and 66 patients in the historical control group. We evaluated the impact of weekly meetings (PEACE rounds) to establish goals of care for patients with longer than 10 days length of stay in the ICU for a year. Moral distress was measured intermittently and reported moral distress thermometer (MDT) scores fluctuated. "Clinical situations" represented the most frequent contributing factor to moral distress. Post intervention, overall moral distress scores, measured on the moral distress scale revised (MDS-R), were lower for respondents in all categories (non-significant), and on three specific items (significant). Patient outcomes before and after PEACE intervention showed a statistically significant decrease in PRISM indexed LOS (4.94 control vs 3.37 PEACE, p = 0.015), a statistically significant increase in both code status changes DNR (11 % control, 28 % PEACE, p = 0.013), and in-hospital death (9 % control, 25 % PEACE, p = 0.015), with no change in patient 30 or 365 day mortality. The addition of a clinical ethicist and senior intensivist to weekly inter-professional team meetings facilitated difficult conversations regarding realistic goals of care. The study demonstrated that the PEACE intervention had a positive impact on some factors that contribute to moral distress and can shorten PICU length of stay for some patients.

Ethics of Gaming the System.

Dentists justifiably bridle at having to compromise what they believe, based on evidence, is in the patients' best interests based on reimbursement rules of benefits providers. Benefits providers justifiably bridle at having to pay for services not contracted by those who purchase insurance. A particular case involving performing multiple quadrants of root planing at a single appointment is used as an example of this tension. One alternative is for the profession and the industry to seek to negotiate a win-win joint position. Another is for a few to game the system, which only makes it more difficult to reach ethical common ground.

How much dentists are ethically concerned about overtreatment; a vignette-based survey in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Overtreatment (or unnecessary treatment) is when medical or dental services are provided with a higher volume or cost than is appropriate. This study aimed to investigate how a group of dentists in Switzerland, a wealthy country known to have high standards of healthcare including dentistry, evaluated the meaning of unnecessary treatments from an ethical perspective and, assessed the expected frequency of different possible behaviors among their peers. METHODS: A vignette describing a situation that is susceptible for overtreatment of a patient was presented to a group of dentists. The vignette was followed by five options. A questionnaire including the vignette was posted to 2482 dentists in the German-speaking areas of Switzerland. The respondents were asked to rate each option according to their estimation about its prevalence and their judgment about the degree to which the behavior is ethically sound. RESULTS: 732 completed questionnaires were returned. According to the responses, the most ethical and the most unethical options are considered to be the most and the least prevalent behaviors among dentists practicing in Switzerland, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Suggesting unnecessary treatments to patients seems to be an ethically unacceptable conduct in the eyes of a sample of dentists in Switzerland. Although the respondents believed their colleagues were very likely to behave in an ethical way in response to a situation that is susceptible to overtreatment, they still seemed to be concerned about the prevalence of unethical behaviors in this regard.

Patient-satisfaction surveys on a scale of 0 to 10: improving health care, or leading it astray?

Patient-satisfaction surveys can call attention to the importance of treating patients with dignity and respect, but good ratings depend more on manipulable patient perceptions than on good medicine. In fact, the pressure to get good ratings can lead to bad medicine.

Discovering overtreatment: second-opinion dilemma.

An experienced vascular surgeon, Dr Al Wright, specializing in venous disease, often sees self-referred patients seeking second opinions primarily for ablation therapy and is deeply disturbed at what he finds. Some patients have no reflux on ultrasound examination and, thus, no treatment is indicated. Others were told they need a ludicrous three to seven ablations in each leg where only one or at most two are needed. Several advertise their services in the media. Dr Wright asked esteemed colleagues from the American Venous Forum what they recommended and they suggested sending a copy of his consultation to the first consultant with the goal of shaming him. He also notified the state medical board 2 years ago about one egregious repeat offender, without action. What should he do? A. Do as suggested, send your consult along with a harsh letter. B. Do nothing. It is none of your business. C. Notify the state medical board, again. D. Notify the insurance companies and regulators. E. There is no good venue to deal with the problem.

The twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism in clinical practice.

CONTEXT: The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath requires doctors to swear that they will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required, avoiding the twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. This paper explores the magnitude of the problem of overtreatment and undertreatment and the potential sources of these treatment errors. METHODS: We undertook a narrative review of the literature on errors in treatment associated with flaws in doctors' judgements and present evidence from research into clinical reasoning and from psychological research into decision making. Based on evidence from these two research fields, we explored the possible reasons why doctors erroneously withhold or unnecessarily administer treatments. RESULTS: Variation in treatment has been documented, even with similar clinical presentations under a variety of conditions, suggesting that overtreatment and undertreatment actually occur, with adverse effects for patients. Both types of error have been demonstrated, even when the doctor arrived at the correct diagnosis. They may be associated with the influence exerted on doctors' treatment judgements by factors that are unrelated to the specific problem, such as patients' socio-demographic characteristics and the doctor's practice culture. Doctors are also subject to commission bias and to omission bias, which have been demonstrated to occur in several domains. Such biases lead doctors to administer unnecessary treatments or to withhold required treatments due to anticipated regret. Little is known about cognitive processes underlying doctors' treatment decisions, but mental representations of diseases that provide the basis for diagnostic reasoning are also probably used for treatment judgements. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors are at risk of falling into the twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. Further research should explore how to avoid these traps, but it may require deliberate reflection on problems to be solved to counteract the influence of factors that are beyond the patient's problem.

[Sectio caesarea: actual controversy]. / Sectio caesarea: Aktuelle Kontroversen.

Caesarean section is one of the most frequently performed operations in human medicine. It has become a routine procedure with a very low morbidity and mortality. Over the centuries, it has emerged an essential achievement in obstetric medicine. In the presence of cephalo-pelvic-disproportion, cervical dystocia, malpresentation, preterm birth, macrosomia, placental insufficiency, placenta praevia or fetal distress it is crucial to improve the perinatal morbiditiy and mortality of mother and child. The procedure has become much more frequent over the past 20 years for multiple reasons. There is variety in incidence between countries but also regional differences. It's occurrence is being influenced by level of education and socio-economic status of the pregnant woman. In the meantime, also the longterm consequences of cesarean section are well known. The potential hazards for future pregnancies and deliveries are well described. Actual controversy addresses cesarean section on demand without any medical indication, which in fact is only seldom performed in Switzerland. The ethical justification of this procedure needs to be discussed in view of the current tendency towards autonomy and self-determination of the pregnant woman.

Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation.

Every infant has a right to bodily integrity. Removing healthy tissue from an infant is only permissible if there is an immediate medical indication. In the case of infant male circumcision there is no evidence of an immediate need to perform the procedure. As a German court recently held, any benefit to circumcision can be obtained by delaying the procedure until the male is old enough to give his own fully informed consent. With the option of delaying circumcision providing all of the purported benefits, circumcising an infant is an unnecessary violation of his bodily integrity as well as an ethically invalid form of medical violence. Parental proxy 'consent' for newborn circumcision is invalid. Male circumcision also violates four core human rights documents-the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture. Social norm theory predicts that once the circumcision rate falls below a critical value, the social norms that currently distort our perception of the practice will dissolve and rates will quickly fall.

One obstetrician's look at a polarizing birth arena.

Birth, whether at home or in the hospital, should involve shared decision making that empowers women to choose or decline the interventions that are best for the woman and her baby. Obstetricians and home birth midwives must share important information with their patients.

Revisiting "The maximin strategy in modern obstetrics".

Published in 1981, "The Maximin Strategy in Modern Obstetrics" offered two claims: first, that obstetrical interventions ought to be assessed not singly, but rather as packages of interconnected measures that could cumulatively increase risks of harm; and second, that many of these interventions, considered either singly or as a package, lacked a sound evidence base. The first claim has been well supported by later literature, although the term "cascade effect" has proven a more felicitous descriptor for the phenomenon of interventions that trigger the use of other interventions to monitor, prevent, or treat possible side-effects. The second claim was initially supported in a very inadequate way, since the "Maximin" article appeared before an understanding of the methods of systematic reviews of medical evidence had been widely promulgated. Despite these defects, subsequent, rigorously conducted systematic reviews have tended to confirm the impression first offered in 1981, that practices that support physiologic childbearing and the innate, hormonally driven capacities of childbearing women and their fetuses/newborns are much more in keeping with the available evidence than practices involving common or routine high-technology interference with physiologic processes. Harm may occur either directly, through high-technology interventions, or when such procedures distract attention and resources from safe, effective biological processes and lower-technology measures. Surveys indicate a lack of knowledge of this evidence among childbearing women, signaling a serious ethical deficiency in shared decision-making processes and perhaps the skills and knowledge of maternity care clinicians.

Women's perceptions of childbirth risk and place of birth.

In the United States, clinical interventions such as epidurals, intravenous infusions, oxytocin, and intrauterine pressure catheters are used almost routinely in births in the hospital setting, despite evidence that the overutilization of such interventions likely plays a key role in increasing the need for cesarean section (CS).' In 2010, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 32.8 percent of births in the U.S. were by CS.2 The U.S. National Institutes of Health has reported that CS increases avoidable maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality.3To increase understanding of what might motivate the overuse of CS in the U.S., we investigated the factors that influenced women's decision making around childbirth, because women's conscious and unconscious choices about giving birth could influence whether they would choose or allow delivery by CS. In this article, we report findings about women's decisions related to place of birth-at home or in a hospital. We found that choosing a place of birth was significant in how women in our study attempted to mitigate their perceptions of the risks of childbirth for themselves and their infant. Concern for the safety of the infant was a central, driving factor in the decisions women made about giving birth, and this concern heightened their perceptions of the risks of childbirth. Heightened perceptions of risk about the safety of the fetus during childbirth were found to affect women's ability to accurately assess the risk of using clinical interventions such as the time of admission, epidural anesthesia, oxytocin, or cesarean birth, which has important implications for clinical practice, prenatal education, perinatal research, medical decision making, and informed consent.