Solicitude: balancing compassion and empowerment in a relational ethics of hope-an empirical-ethical study in palliative care.

The ethics of hope has often been understood as a conflict between duties: do not lie versus do not destroy hope. However, such a way of framing the ethics of hope may easily place healthcare professionals at the side of realism and patients at the side of (false) hope. That leaves unexamined relational dimensions of hope. The objective of this study was to describe a relational ethics of hope based on the perspectives of palliative care patients, their family members and their healthcare professionals. A qualitative longitudinal method based on narrative theories was used. Semi-structured interviews on hope were conducted with twenty-nine palliative care patients, nineteen friends or family members, and fifty-two healthcare professionals, which were recorded and transcribed. Data on hope were thematically analyzed. The researchers wrote memos and did member checking with participants. When participants spoke about hope, they referred to power and empowerment, like the powerful bonding of hope between patients and physicians. They also associated hope with the loss of hope and suffering. Several participating healthcare professionals tried to balance both sides, which involved acknowledgment of hope and suffering. Hope and power were reflected in the ethical concept of empowerment, whereas suffering and the loss of hope were reflected in the ethical concept of compassion. Empowerment and compassion can be balanced in solicitude. In conclusion, a relational ethics of hope requires solicitude, in which healthcare professionals are able to weigh empowerment and compassion within particular relationships.

Improving communication on hope in palliative care. A qualitative study of palliative care professionals' metaphors of hope: grip, source, tune, and vision.

CONTEXT: Hope is important in palliative care. However, palliative care professionals' perspectives on hope are not well understood. Metaphors of hope are a way of better understanding these perspectives. OBJECTIVES: To describe palliative care professionals' perspectives on hope by examining the hope metaphors they spontaneously used to describe their own hope and their perspectives on the hope of patients and their families. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with palliative care professionals were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a narrative approach. Results were discussed until the researchers reached consensus and reinforced by other health-care professionals and by observing several palliative care settings. RESULTS: The 64 participants (mean (SD) age, 48.42 (9.27) years and 72% female) were physicians (41%), nurses (34%), chaplains (20%), or other professionals (5%), working in Canada (19%) or The Netherlands (81%). Participants described the hope of patients, their families, or themselves as a 1) grip, which implied safety; 2) source, which implied strength; 3) tune, which implied harmony; and 4) vision, which implied a positive perspective. Compared with Dutch participants, Canadian participants generally put more emphasis on spirituality and letting go of their own hope as a grip (safety). Compared with other included professionals, physicians used hope as a grip (safety) most often, whereas chaplains used hope as a tune (harmony) most often. CONCLUSION: Our findings help to increase the understanding of hope and contribute to improving communication skills in palliative care professionals.

Risk detection in individual health care: any limits?

BACKGROUND: biomedical science is producing an avalanche of data about risk factors, often with a small predictive value, associated with a broad diversity of diseases. Prevention and screening are increasingly moving from public health into the clinic. Therefore, the question of which risk factors to investigate and disclose in the individual patient, becomes ethically increasingly urgent. In line with Wilson and Jungner's public health-related 10 principles for screening, it seems crucial to distinguish important from unimportant health risks. AIM: to explore the ways in which clinicians distinguish important from unimportant health risks. METHODS: we interviewed 36 respondents (gastroenterologists and gynaecologists/obstetrics) in 5 focus group interviews and 15 open in-depth interviews on their interpretation of what makes a health risk important. RESULTS: physicians primarily interpreted importance as the severity of the possible harm, less often its probability. Possibilities of prevention or reassurance strongly influenced their judgment on importance. DISCUSSION: it is not likely that interpreting 'important' as 'severe' will help in differentiating meaningful from meaningless risk knowledge. A more fundamental change in our ways of dealing with risk may be called for. We discuss existing literature on resilience as an alternative way to deal with risk. Balancing prevention and risk reduction with resilience could be a fruitful direction.

How Ghanaian, African-Surinamese and Dutch patients perceive and manage antihypertensive drug treatment: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and compare how Ghanaian, African-Surinamese (Surinamese), and White-Dutch patients perceive and manage antihypertensive drug treatment in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. METHODS: Qualitative study was conducted using detailed interviews with a purposive sample of 46 hypertensive patients without comorbidity who were prescribed antihypertensives. RESULTS: Patients in all the ethnic groups actively decided how to manage their prescribed antihypertensive regimens. In all the groups, confidence in the doctor and beneficial effects of medication were reasons for taking prescribed antihypertensive dosage. Particularly, ethnic-minority patients reported lowering or leaving off the prescribed medication dosage. Explanations for altering prescribed dosage comprised disliking chemical medications, fear of side effects and preference for alternative treatment. Surinamese and Ghanaian men also worried about the negative effects of antihypertensives on their sexual performance. Some Ghanaians mentioned fear of addiction or lack of money as explanations for altering prescribed dosage. Surinamese and Ghanaians often discontinued medication when visiting their homeland. Some respondents from all ethnic groups preferred natural treatments although treatment type varied. CONCLUSION: Patients' explanations for their decisions regarding the use of antihypertensives are often influenced by sociocultural issues and in ethnic-minority groups also by migration-related issues. Self-alteration of prescribed medication among Surinamese and Ghanaians may contribute to the low blood pressure (BP) control rate and high rate of malignant hypertension reported among these populations in the Netherlands. This study provides new information, which can help clinicians to understand how patients of diverse ethnic populations think about managing antihypertensive drug treatment and to address ethnic disparities in medication adherence and BP control.