Reflexive control in emergency medicine.

Emergency physicians (EPs) navigate high-pressure environments, making rapid decisions amidst ambiguity. Their choices are informed by a complex interplay of experience, information, and external forces. While cognitive shortcuts (heuristics) expedite assessments, there are multiple ways they can be subtly manipulated, potentially leading to reflexive control: external actors steering EPs' decisions for their own benefit. Pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and media narratives are among the numerous factors that influence the EPs' information landscape. Using tactics such as selective data dissemination, framing, and financial incentives, these actors can exploit pre-existing cognitive biases like anchoring, confirmation, and availability. This creates fertile ground for reflexive control, where EPs may believe they are acting independently while unknowingly serving the goals of external influencers. The consequences of manipulated decision making can be severe: misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatments, and increased healthcare costs. Ethical dilemmas arise when external pressures conflict with patient well-being. Recognizing these dangers empowers EPs to resist reflexive control through (1) critical thinking: examining information for potential biases and prioritizing evidence-based practices, (2) continuous education: learning about cognitive biases and mitigation strategies, and (3) institutional policies: implementing regulations to reduce external influence and to promote transparency. This vulnerability of emergency medicine decision making highlights the need for awareness, education, and robust ethical frameworks. Understanding reflexive control techniques is crucial for safeguarding patient care and promoting independent, ethical decision making in emergency medicine.

Euthanasia and End-of-Life Decisions: From the Empirical Turn to Moral Intuitionism.

Most medical learned societies have endorsed both "equivalence" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the "discontinuity" between euthanasia and practices to withhold or withdraw treatment. While the latter are morally acceptable insofar as they consist in letting the patient die, the former constitutes an illegitimate act of actively interfering with a patient's life. The moral distinction between killing and letting die has been hotly debated both conceptually and empirically, most notably by experimental philosophers, with inconclusive results. This article employs a "revisionary" intuititionist perspective to discuss the results of a clinical ethics study about intensivists' perceptions of withhold or withdraw decisions. The results show that practitioners' moral experience is at odds with both the discontinuity and equivalence theses. This outcome allows us to revisit certain concepts, such as intention and causal relationship, that are prominent in the conceptual debate. Intensivists also regard end-of-life decisions as being on a scale from least to most active, and whether they regard active forms of end-of-life decisions as ethically acceptable depends on the overarching professional values they endorse: the patient's best chances of survival, or the patient's quality of life.

Pediatric Decision-Making: ethical aspects specific to neonates.

Recently published consensus recommendations on pediatric decision-making by Salter and colleagues (2023) did not address neonatal decision-making, due to the unique complexities of neonatal care. This essay explores three areas that impact neonatal decision-making: legal and policy considerations, rapid technological advancement, and the unique emotional burdens faced by parents and clinicians during the medical care of neonates. The authors evaluate the six consensus recommendations related to these considerations and conclude that the consensus recommendations apply to neonates.

Limits on Parental Discretion in Medical Decision-Making: pediatric intervention principles converge.

Pediatric intervention principles help clinicians and health-care institutions determine appropriate responses when parents' medical decisions place children at risk. Several intervention principles have been proposed and defended in the pediatric ethics literature. These principles may appear to provide conflicting guidance, but much of that conflict is superficial. First, seemingly different pediatric intervention principles sometimes converge on the same guidance. Second, these principles often aim to solve different problems in pediatrics or to operate in different background conditions. The potential for convergence between intervention principles-or at least an absence of conflict between them-matters for both the theory and practice of pediatric ethics. This article builds on the recent work of a diverse group of pediatric ethicists tasked with identifying consensus guidelines for pediatric decision-making.

Childhood Interests: what they are and why it matters.

This paper examines the concept and moral significance of "childhood interests." This concept is important in medical decision-making for children and more broadly in the field of pediatric ethics. The authors argue that childhood interests are identifiable components of childhood well-being that carry moral weight. Parents have a special role in protecting and promoting these interests and special obligations to do so. These parental obligations are grounded by the independent interests of the child, as well as the good of society more generally. Because parents have these child-rearing obligations, they must also have the authority and wide discretion necessary to fulfill them. However, while parental discretion is wide, it is not unlimited, for it must be used to safeguard and advance childhood interests.

A Personalized Patient Preference Predictor for Substituted Judgments in Healthcare: Technically Feasible and Ethically Desirable.

When making substituted judgments for incapacitated patients, surrogates often struggle to guess what the patient would want if they had capacity. Surrogates may also agonize over having the (sole) responsibility of making such a determination. To address such concerns, a Patient Preference Predictor (PPP) has been proposed that would use an algorithm to infer the treatment preferences of individual patients from population-level data about the known preferences of people with similar demographic characteristics. However, critics have suggested that even if such a PPP were more accurate, on average, than human surrogates in identifying patient preferences, the proposed algorithm would nevertheless fail to respect the patient's (former) autonomy since it draws on the 'wrong' kind of data: namely, data that are not specific to the individual patient and which therefore may not reflect their actual values, or their reasons for having the preferences they do. Taking such criticisms on board, we here propose a new approach: the Personalized Patient Preference Predictor (P4). The P4 is based on recent advances in machine learning, which allow technologies including large language models to be more cheaply and efficiently 'fine-tuned' on person-specific data. The P4, unlike the PPP, would be able to infer an individual patient's preferences from material (e.g., prior treatment decisions) that is in fact specific to them. Thus, we argue, in addition to being potentially more accurate at the individual level than the previously proposed PPP, the predictions of a P4 would also more directly reflect each patient's own reasons and values. In this article, we review recent discoveries in artificial intelligence research that suggest a P4 is technically feasible, and argue that, if it is developed and appropriately deployed, it should assuage some of the main autonomy-based concerns of critics of the original PPP. We then consider various objections to our proposal and offer some tentative replies.

Creating a safer and better functioning system: Lessons to be learned from the Netherlands for an ethical defence of an autonomy-only approach to assisted dying.

The proposal to allow assisted dying for people who are not severely ill reignited the Dutch end-of-life debate when it was submitted in 2016. A key criticism of this proposal is that it is too radical a departure from the safe and well-functioning system the Netherlands already has. The goal of this article is to respond to this criticism and question whether the Dutch system really can be described as safe and well functioning. I will reconsider the usefulness of the suffering criterion, and I will ultimately argue this criterion should be rejected altogether. Instead, we should consider moving towards an autonomy-only approach to assisted dying. This would resolve some significant issues occurring under the current system of assisted dying in the Netherlands and ultimately make the process safer and better functioning. I will then consider some possible objections to adopting an autonomy-only approach and provide some preliminary responses to these also. I will finally highlight some potential areas where further research may be necessary, namely, how to mitigate the effect of external factors such as poverty or other life aspects that may have the potential to distort the individual's ability to make autonomous decisions. I will also consider some possible international lessons that can be taken from both current as well as the proposed practice in the Netherlands.

On subjective measures of decision quality.

In times of person-centered care, it is all the more important to support patients in making good decisions about their care. One way to offer such support to patients is by way of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs). Ranging from patient brochures to web-based tools, PDAs explicitly state the decisions patients face, inform them about their medical options, help them to clarify and discuss their values, and ultimately make a decision. However, lingering discussions surround effectiveness research on PDAs. In this article, I focus on two subjective measures of decision quality that are widely used as outcome measures in effectiveness research on PDAs (i.e., the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and measures of regret). Although these measurement instruments have attracted critical attention in the scientific literature, bioethicists have hardly engaged with them. Therefore, I set myself to analyze the relationship between (the different subscales of) the DCS and measures of regret, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as beneficence and autonomy, on the other hand. In light of that analysis, I will clarify some discussions regarding the use of these measures of decision quality in effectiveness research on PDAs. This should help us to align the way we evaluate PDAs with ethical principles and avoid that our attempts to support patients in making good decisions about their care that is so central to person-centered care point in unethical directions.

Ethical challenges in health care during collective hunger strikes in public or occupied spaces.

Public collective hunger strikes take place in complex social and political contexts, require medical attention and present ethical challenges to physicians. Empirical research, the ethical debate to date and existing guidelines by the World Medical Association focus almost exclusively on hunger strikes in detention. However, the public space differs substantially with regard to the conditions for the provision of health care and the diverse groups of healthcare providers or stakeholders involved. By reviewing empirical research on the experience of health professionals with public collective hunger strikes, we identified the following ethical challenges: (1) establishment of a trustful physician-striker relationship, (2) balancing of medico-ethical principles in medical decision-making, (3) handling of loyalty conflicts and (4) preservation of professional independence and the risk of political instrumentalization. Some of these challenges have already been described and discussed, yet not contextualized for public collective strikes, while others are novel. The presence of voluntary physicians may offer opportunities for a trustful relationship and, hence, for ethical treatment decisions. According to our findings, it requires more attention to how to realise autonomous medical decisions in the complex context of a dynamic, often unstructured and politically charged setting, which ethical norms should shape the professional role of voluntary physicians, and what is the influence of the hunger strikers' collective on individual healthcare decisions. Our article can serve as a starting point for further ethical discussion. It can also provide the basis for the development of potential guidelines to support health professionals involved in public collective hunger strikes.

Arguments for a ban on pediatric intersex surgery: A dis/analogy with Jehovah witness blood transfusion.

This article argues for a ban on the performance of medically unnecessary genital normalizing surgeries as part of assigning a binary sex/gender to infants with intersex conditions on the basis of autonomy, regardless of etiology. It does this via a dis/analogy with the classic case in bioethics of Jehovah Witness (JW) parents' inability to refuse life-saving blood transfusions for their minor children. Both cases address ethical medical practice in situations where parents are making irreversible medical decisions on the basis of values strongly held, identity, and relationship-shaping values-such as religious beliefs or beliefs regarding the inherent value of binary sex/gender-amidst ethical pluralism. Furthermore, it takes seriously-as we must in the intersex case-that the restriction of parents' right to choose will likely result in serious harms to potentially large percentage of patients, their families, and their larger communities. I address the objection that parents' capacity to choose is restricted in the JW case on the basis of the harm principle or a duty to nonmaleficence, given that the result of parent choice would be death. I provide evidence that this is mistaken from how we treat epistemic uncertainty in the JW case and from cases in which clinicians are ethically obligated to restrict the autonomy of nonminor patients. I conclude that we restrict the parents' right to choose in the JW case-and should in the case of pediatric intersex surgery-to secure patient's future autonomy.

Ethical and practical considerations of pediatric refusal in clinical anesthesia: An educational review.

Children commonly refuse induction of anesthesia. Anesthesia providers must then decide whether to honor the child's dissent or to proceed over objection. In some circumstances, a forced induction involves restraining the child, incurring both practical and ethical harms to the patient-provider encounter. This educational review explores the practical dilemma encountered when a child dissents to induction of anesthesia. In the course of exploring this dilemma, dissent and associated terms are defined and compared, and the prominent ethical underpinnings regarding pediatric decision-making are described to clarify dissent as an ethical and practical concept. Important legal and professional standards are summarized, and practice trends are discussed to depict the current state of practice, including novel approaches to honoring pediatric dissent for elective surgeries. This information is then used to invite providers to consider where they ethically situate themselves within a legally and professionally defined space of acceptable practice. Finally, these considerations are synthesized to discuss important nuances regarding pediatric refusal, and some key questions are presented for clinicians to ponder as they consider their practice of choosing whether to honor pediatric dissent at induction.

Artificial Intelligence to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients: a survey among German anesthesiologists and internists.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized various healthcare domains, where AI algorithms sometimes even outperform human specialists. However, the field of clinical ethics has remained largely untouched by AI advances. This study explores the attitudes of anesthesiologists and internists towards the use of AI-driven preference prediction tools to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and pretested among medical students. The questionnaire was distributed to 200 German anesthesiologists and 200 German internists, thereby focusing on physicians who often encounter patients lacking decision-making capacity. The questionnaire covered attitudes toward AI-driven preference prediction, availability and utilization of Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS), and experiences with ethically challenging situations. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis was performed. Qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis in a mixed inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Participants were predominantly male (69.3%), with ages ranging from 27 to 77. Most worked in nonacademic hospitals (82%). Physicians generally showed hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction, citing concerns about the loss of individuality and humanity, lack of explicability in AI results, and doubts about AI's ability to encompass the ethical deliberation process. In contrast, physicians had a more positive opinion of CESS. Availability of CESS varied, with 81.8% of participants reporting access. Among those without access, 91.8% expressed a desire for CESS. Physicians' reluctance toward AI-driven preference prediction aligns with concerns about transparency, individuality, and human-machine interaction. While AI could enhance the accuracy of predictions and reduce surrogate burden, concerns about potential biases, de-humanisation, and lack of explicability persist. CONCLUSIONS: German physicians frequently encountering incapacitated patients exhibit hesitance toward AI-driven preference prediction but hold a higher esteem for CESS. Addressing concerns about individuality, explicability, and human-machine roles may facilitate the acceptance of AI in clinical ethics. Further research into patient and surrogate perspectives is needed to ensure AI aligns with patient preferences and values in complex medical decisions.

How prehospital emergency personnel manage ethical challenges: the importance of confidence, trust, and safety.

BACKGROUND: Ethical challenges constitute an inseparable part of daily decision-making processes in all areas of healthcare. Ethical challenges are associated with moral distress that can lead to burnout. Clinical ethics support has proven useful to address and manage such challenges. This paper explores how prehospital emergency personnel manage ethical challenges. The study is part of a larger action research project to develop and test an approach to clinical ethics support that is sensitive to the context of emergency medicine. METHODS: We explored ethical challenges and management strategies in three focus groups, with 15 participants in total, each attended by emergency medical technicians, paramedics, and prehospital anaesthesiologists. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The approach to data analysis was systematic text condensation approach. RESULTS: We stratified the management of ethical challenges into actions before, during, and after incidents. Before incidents, participants stressed the importance of mutual understandings, shared worldviews, and a supportive approach to managing emotions. During an incident, the participants employed moral perception, moral judgments, and moral actions. After an incident, the participants described sharing ethical challenges only to a limited extent as sharing was emotionally challenging, and not actively supported by workplace culture, or organisational procedures. The participants primarily managed ethical challenges informally, often using humour to cope. CONCLUSION: Our analysis supports and clarifies that confidence, trust, and safety in relation to colleagues, management, and the wider organisation are essential for prehospital emergency personnel to share ethical challenges and preventing moral distress turning into burnout.

Ethical Decision-Making Confidence and Professional Values Among Nurse Leaders.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to describe differences in nurse leaders' ethical decision-making confidence and their professional values based on identified characteristics and to explore the relationship between ethical decision making and professional values. BACKGROUND: Nurse leaders have multiple duties and obligations toward their patients, other staff, and the organizations where they work. However, ethical decisions can be complex, requiring the guidance of professional values and critical appraisal of the situation. METHODS: This study was conducted using a correlational design. Convenience sampling was used, resulting in a sample of 56 nurse leaders in various positions. RESULT: Ethical decision making and professional values were found to be strongly correlated. CONCLUSION: Ethical decision making and professional values are highly correlated in this sample. Understanding the importance of the effects of certain factors on ethical decision making can assist in forming an environment supportive of ethical practices for nurses.

Owning Decisions: AI Decision-Support and the Attributability-Gap.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has long been recognised as a challenge to responsibility. Much of this discourse has been framed around robots, such as autonomous weapons or self-driving cars, where we arguably lack control over a machine's behaviour and therefore struggle to identify an agent that can be held accountable. However, most of today's AI is based on machine-learning technology that does not act on its own, but rather serves as a decision-support tool, automatically analysing data to help human agents make better decisions. I argue that decision-support tools pose a challenge to responsibility that goes beyond the familiar problem of finding someone to blame or punish for the behaviour of agent-like systems. Namely, they pose a problem for what we might call "decision ownership": they make it difficult to identify human agents to whom we can attribute value-judgements that are reflected in decisions. Drawing on recent philosophical literature on responsibility and its various facets, I argue that this is primarily a problem of attributability rather than of accountability. This particular responsibility problem comes in different forms and degrees, most obviously when an AI provides direct recommendations for actions, but also, less obviously, when it provides mere descriptive information on the basis of which a decision is made.

Comparing First-Year Engineering Student Conceptions of Ethical Decision-Making to Performance on Standardized Assessments of Ethical Reasoning.

The Defining Issues Test 2 (DIT-2) and Engineering Ethical Reasoning Instrument (EERI) are designed to measure ethical reasoning of general (DIT-2) and engineering-student (EERI) populations. These tools-and the DIT-2 especially-have gained wide usage for assessing the ethical reasoning of undergraduate students. This paper reports on a research study in which the ethical reasoning of first-year undergraduate engineering students at multiple universities was assessed with both of these tools. In addition to these two instruments, students were also asked to create personal concept maps of the phrase "ethical decision-making." It was hypothesized that students whose instrument scores reflected more postconventional levels of moral development and more sophisticated ethical reasoning skills would likewise have richer, more detailed concept maps of ethical decision-making, reflecting their deeper levels of understanding of this topic and the complex of related concepts. In fact, there was no significant correlation between the instrument scores and concept map scoring, suggesting that the way first-year students conceptualize ethical decision making does not predict the way they behave when performing scenario-based ethical reasoning (perhaps more situated). This disparity indicates a need to more precisely quantify engineering ethical reasoning and decision making, if we wish to inform assessment outcomes using the results of such quantitative analyses.

Eating at Risk within Long-Term Care: A Case for the Relational Ethics Lens.

Within long-term care homes (LTCHs), conflicts occur between residents' desires, LTCH constraints, and healthcare providers' concerns about risks of harm. Due to the high prevalence of dysphagia and malnutrition in these settings, decisions regarding food choices are a common source of such tensions. Existing biomedical ethical models fail to capture the complexity of the interprofessional chronic care environment. This article proposes an alternative ethical lens, the relational ethics model. We describe a case illustrating the application of a decision-making framework with a relational ethics lens for a resident with severe dysphagia and malnutrition. We highlight how the bioethics model excludes important actors from ethical decision making. We encourage registered dietitians working in LTCH to incorporate a relational ethics model into their practice to help identify resident's values and bring attention to the interconnectedness of caring relationships and contextual factors. This approach can inform difficult decisions regarding the food and nutrition choices of residents and may facilitate meaningful outcomes for both individuals and the long-term care community.

Guiding Ethical Decisions in Cochlear Implantation for the Hearing Impaired with Comorbid Psychosis.

AbstractCochlear implants can restore hearing in people with severe hearing loss and have a significant impact on communication, social integration, self-esteem, and quality of life. However, whether and how much clinical benefit is derived from cochlear implants varies significantly by patient and is influenced by the etiology and extent of hearing loss, medical comorbidities, and preexisting behavioral and psychosocial issues. In patients with underlying psychosis, concerns have been raised that the introduction of auditory stimuli could trigger hallucinations, worsen existing delusions, or exacerbate erratic behavior. This concern has made psychosis a relative contraindication to cochlear implant surgery. This is problematic because there is a lack of data describing this phenomenon and because the psychosocial benefits derived from improvement in auditory function may be a critical intervention for treating psychosis in some patients. The objective of this report is to provide an ethical framework for guiding clinical decision-making on cochlear implant surgery in the hearing impaired with psychosis.

The ethics of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in adults and the role of the advanced clinical practitioner.

Clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) decision-making in adult patients presents complex ethical dilemmas that require careful consideration and navigation. This clinical review addresses the multifaceted aspects of CANH, emphasising the importance of ethical frameworks and the role of advanced clinical practitioners (ACPs) in guiding decision-making processes. The pivotal role of ACPs is highlighted, from their responsibilities and challenges in decision-making to the collaborative approach they facilitate involving patients, families and multidisciplinary teams. The article also explores ethical principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, elucidating their application in CANH decision-making. Legal and ethical frameworks covering CANH are examined, alongside case studies illustrating ethical dilemmas and resolutions. Patient-centred approaches to CANH decision-making are discussed, emphasising effective communication and consideration of cultural and religious beliefs. End-of-life considerations and palliative care in CANH are also examined, including the transition to palliative care and ethical considerations in withdrawal or withholding of CANH. Future directions for research and implications for clinical practice are outlined, highlighting the need for ongoing ethical reflection and the integration of ACPs in CANH decision-making.

Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants.

When do people find it acceptable to sacrifice one life to save many? Cross-cultural studies suggested a complex pattern of universals and variations in the way people approach this question, but data were often based on small samples from a small number of countries outside of the Western world. Here we analyze responses to three sacrificial dilemmas by 70,000 participants in 10 languages and 42 countries. In every country, the three dilemmas displayed the same qualitative ordering of sacrifice acceptability, suggesting that this ordering is best explained by basic cognitive processes rather than cultural norms. The quantitative acceptability of each sacrifice, however, showed substantial country-level variations. We show that low relational mobility (where people are more cautious about not alienating their current social partners) is strongly associated with the rejection of sacrifices for the greater good (especially for Eastern countries), which may be explained by the signaling value of this rejection. We make our dataset fully available as a public resource for researchers studying universals and variations in human morality.