Shared decision making in older people after severe stroke.

Stroke is a major cause of death and lifelong disability. Although stroke treatments have improved, many patients are left with life-changing deficits. Shared decision making and consent are fundamental to good medical practice. This is challenging because stroke often causes mental incapacity, prior views might not be known and prognosis early after stroke is often uncertain. There are no large trials of shared decision making after severe stroke, so we need to rely on observational data to inform practice. Core ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice must underpin our decision making. 'Surrogate' decision makers will need to be involved if a patient lacks capacity, and prior expressed views and values and beliefs need to be taken into account in decision making. Patients and surrogates often feel shocked at the sudden nature of stroke, and experience grief including anticipatory grief. Health care professionals need to acknowledge these feelings and provide support, be clear about what decisions need to be made and provide sufficient information about the stroke, and the risks and benefits of treatments being considered. Shared decision making can be emotionally difficult for health care professionals and so working in a supportive environment with compassionate leadership is important. Further research is needed to better understand the nature of grief and what sort of psychological support would be most helpful. Large randomised trials of shared decision making are also needed.

Values-Based Medicine Is an Ethical Concept for Implementing the Ethical Principles in Daily Practice.

Values-based medicine (VsBM) is an ethical concept, and bioethical framework has been developed to ensure that medical ethics and values are implemented, pervasive, and powerful parameters influencing decisions about health, clinical practice, teaching, medical industry, career development, malpractice, and research. Neurosurgeons tend to adopt ethics according to their own values and to what they see and learn from teachers. Neurosurgeons, in general, are aware about ethical codes and the patient's rights. However, the philosophy, concept, and principles of medical ethics are rarely included in the training programs or in training courses. The impact of implementing, observing the medical ethics and the patients' value and culture on the course, and outcome of patients' management should not underestimate. The main principles of medical ethics are autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, dignity, and honesty, which should be strictly observed in every step of medical practice, research, teaching, and publication. Evidence-based medicine has been popularized in the last 40-50 years in order to raise up the standard of medical practice. Medical ethics and values have been associated with the medical practice for thousands of years since patients felt a need for treatment. There is no conflict between evidence-based medicine and values-based medicine, as a medical practice should always be performed within a frame of ethics and respect for patients' values. Observing the principles of values-based medicine became very relevant as multicultural societies are dominant in some countries and hospitals in different corners of the world.

A critical take on procreative justice.

Herjeet Kaur Marway recently proposed the Principle of Procreative Justice, which says that reproducers have a strong moral obligation to avoid completing race and colour injustices through their selection choices. In this article, we analyze this principle and argue, appealing to a series of counterexamples, that some of the implications of Marway's Principle of Procreative Justice are difficult to accept. This casts doubt on whether the principle should be adopted. Also, we show that there are some more principled worries regarding Marway's idea of a strong pro tanto duty not to complete injustices through one's procreative choices. Nonetheless, we believe Marway's arguments point in the right general direction regarding duties and structural injustice. Thus, in the final part, we suggest a positive proposal on how it would be possible to respond to the cases we raise. More specifically, we explore the suggestion that agents have a pro tanto duty to participate in eliminating structural injustice. Importantly, this duty can be satisfied, not only in procreation choices but in multiple ways.

Assisted suicide and the discrimination argument: Can people with mental illness fulfill beneficence- and autonomy-based eligibility criteria?

According to the "discrimination argument," it would be discriminatory and hence impermissible to categorically exclude people with mental illness (PMI) from access to assisted suicide (AS) if AS is accessible to people with somatic illnesses. In objection to this, it could be argued that excluding PMI is not discriminatory, but rather based on their inability to meet certain eligibility criteria for AS. Which criteria are deemed necessary depends on the approach taken to justifying AS. In this article, we describe two distinct ethical approaches to justifying AS and the eligibility criteria they entail and examine whether PMI can fulfill these criteria. A widespread "joint" approach based on beneficence and autonomy assumes that AS is justified when it alleviates the severe and irremediable suffering of a person who autonomously requests AS. An alternative, exclusively autonomy-based approach assumes that providing AS is justified when a person's request is autonomous, regardless of whether AS is in her best interests. The latter approach underlies an important judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court from 2020. We argue that PMI can in principle fulfill both beneficence- and autonomy-based eligibility criteria for AS, and that a blanket exclusion of all PMI from AS is thus discriminatory on either approach. However, depending on which approach is taken, there are differences regarding the subgroups of PMI that would be eligible for AS. Whether the exclusion of specific PMI is discriminatory therefore depends on how we understand and justify AS.

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.

Ethics of early detection of disease risk factors: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Scientific and technological advancements in mapping and understanding the interrelated pathways through which biological and environmental exposures affect disease development create new possibilities for detecting disease risk factors. Early detection of such risk factors may help prevent disease onset or moderate the disease course, thereby decreasing associated disease burden, morbidity, and mortality. However, the ethical implications of screening for disease risk factors are unclear and the current literature provides a fragmented and case-by-case picture. METHODS: To identify key ethical considerations arising from the early detection of disease risk factors, we performed a systematic scoping review. The Scopus, Embase, and Philosopher's Index databases were searched for peer-reviewed, academic records, which were included if they were written in English or Dutch and concerned the ethics of (1) early detection of (2) disease risk factors for (3) disease caused by environmental factors or gene-environment interactions. All records were reviewed independently by at least two researchers. RESULTS: After screening 2034 titles and abstracts, and 112 full papers, 55 articles were included in the thematic synthesis of the results. We identified eight common ethical themes: (1) Reliability and uncertainty in early detection, (2) autonomy, (3) privacy, (4) beneficence and non-maleficence, (5) downstream burdens on others, (6) responsibility, (7) justice, and (8) medicalization and conceptual disruption. We identified several gaps in the literature, including a relative scarcity of research on ethical considerations associated with environmental preventive health interventions, a dearth of practical suggestions on how to address expressed concerns about overestimating health capacities, and a lack of insights into preventing undue attribution of health responsibility to individuals. CONCLUSIONS: The ethical concerns arising with the early detection of risk factors are often interrelated and complex. Comprehensive ethical analyses are needed that are better embedded in normative frameworks and also assess and weigh the expected benefits of early risk factor detection. Such research is necessary for developing and implementing responsible and fair preventive health policies.

Ethical considerations and concerns in the implementation of AI in pharmacy practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has raised significant ethical concerns. In pharmacy practice, AI offers promising advances but also poses ethical challenges. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in countries from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region on 501 pharmacy professionals. A 12-item online questionnaire assessed ethical concerns related to the adoption of AI in pharmacy practice. Demographic factors associated with ethical concerns were analyzed via SPSS v.27 software using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Participants expressed concerns about patient data privacy (58.9%), cybersecurity threats (58.9%), potential job displacement (62.9%), and lack of legal regulation (67.0%). Tech-savviness and basic AI understanding were correlated with higher concern scores (p < 0.001). Ethical implications include the need for informed consent, beneficence, justice, and transparency in the use of AI. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the importance of ethical guidelines, education, and patient autonomy in adopting AI. Collaboration, data privacy, and equitable access are crucial to the responsible use of AI in pharmacy practice.

Ethical Challenges for Plastic Surgery in Treating Internationally Adopted Children With Cleft Lip and Palate.

A large number of children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) were adopted to Sweden in the last decade, mainly from China. Most of the children arrived with unoperated palates and at later ages than earlier years. This article aims to present an overview of ethical challenges within the practice of international adoption of children with CLP from the perspective of plastic surgery in a welfare health care system. An overview of CLP treatment is presented, followed by a normative discussion and ethical analysis using the 4 principles of Beauchamp and Childress: non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. The following themes and subthemes were analyzed: the search for normality and the potential challenge of being adopted and having CLP-treatment autonomy of the child and future preferences, adoptive parents' expectations of plastic surgery, the journey of the adoptee and the adoptive parents; and general issues-reconstructive possibilities and consequences of CLP in the country of origin, information to the adoptive parents, health care needs, and reconstructive possibilities for children with CLP in the receiving country. Clinical implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Identifying abolitionist alignments in community psychology: A path toward transformation.

Psychology is grounded in the ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, that is, "do no harm." Yet many have argued that psychology as a field is attached to carceral systems and ideologies that uphold the prison industrial complex (PIC), including the field of community psychology (CP). There have been recent calls in other areas of psychology to transform the discipline into an abolitionist social science, but this discourse is nascent in CP. This paper uses the semantic device of "algorithms" (e.g., conventions to guide thinking and decision-making) to identify the areas of alignment and misalignment between abolition and CP in the service of moving us toward greater alignment. The authors propose that many in CP are already oriented to abolition because of our values and theories of empowerment, promotion, and systems change; our areas of misalignment between abolition and CP hold the potential to evolve. We conclude with proposing implications for the field of CP, including commitments to the belief that (1) the PIC cannot be reformed, and (2) abolition must be aligned with other transnational liberation efforts (e.g., decolonization).

Analysis of 20 Years of Ethics Consultations at a U.S. Children's Hospital.

AbstractEmpirical studies of pediatric clinical ethics cases are scant in the biomedical and bioethics literature. In this study, more than 100 detailed records of clinical ethics consultations spanning from 2000 to 2020 at a moderately sized U.S. Mid-Atlantic children's hospital were abstracted and analyzed. Findings of the analysis were generally consistent with other studies in pediatric clinical ethics, with additional insight into aspects of moral distress associated with cases, family engagement with consultations, and other characteristics of interest also documented. Over the 20-year time frame, ethics consults were completed on average twice a year, with a detectable upward trend. Consultations were requested across the spectrum of services and units within the hospital, with critical care environments represented most frequently and genetic and neurological conditions being the most common primary diagnoses. Ethical analysis most commonly related to questions around the principles of autonomy and beneficence.

Working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, patients in Thailand have easier access to public health services, resulting in an increased number of patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, the Royal College of Anesthesiologists produces nurse anesthetists to reduce the shortage of anesthesiologists who can perform general anesthesia under the physician's supervision. As a result, nurse anesthetists must have the consciousness to work on the basis of ethics and professional standards. Nurse anesthetists have work experience that aims to benefit patients and make them as safe as possible. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients. METHODS: This study employed qualitative research using in-depth interviews. The sample consisted of 33 nurse anesthetists who volunteered to participate in the research project with more than ten years of work experience and worked in tertiary care hospitals. The researcher used a qualitative content analysis method.Ethical considerations: Study after approval and certification of the research project from the Human Ethics Committee of Mahidol University, and Naval Medical Department. RESULTS: The working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients involves communicating and listening with compassion, being considerate, knowledgeable, and standard operations, team communication, and awareness of patient safety, as a productive and non-harmful work experience. DISCUSSION: Nurse anesthetists working in situations of beneficial approaches to patient care need experience in appropriate communication, professional knowledge and skills to thoroughly assess patients, pass critical information to the team, and be aware of potential risks. Make patients receive care in a more suitable and safe way. CONCLUSION: Working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients exists with communication and listening with compassion, being considerate, communicating and forwarding the patient's necessary information to the team to be aware of abnormalities, knowledgeable and standard operations, and awareness of patient safety in every phase of the performance consistently.

[Ethical stakes of psychosocial rehabilitation]. / Les enjeux éthiques de la réhabilitation psychosociale.

Psychosocial rehabilitation (PSR) is a therapeutic approach which aims to improve the overall functioning of people with severe mental disorders. We detail the principles of bioethics applied to care and seek to demonstrate how PSR meets the requirements of a humanistic psychiatry. The four fundamental principles of the ethics of care - autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice - are found in the practice of PSR. The practice and implementation of PSR is strongly encouraged in universal codes of ethics.

An "ethics of strangers"? On knowing the patient in clinical ethics.

The shape and function of ethical imperatives may vary if the context is an interaction between strangers, or those who are well acquainted. This idea, taken up from Stephen Toulmin's distinction between an "ethics of strangers" and an "ethics of intimacy", can be applied to encounters in healthcare. There are situations where healthcare personnel (HCP) know their patients (corresponding to an "ethics of intimacy") and situations where HCP do not know their patients (corresponding to "an ethics of strangers"). Does it make a difference for normative imperatives that follow from central concepts and principles in medical ethics whether HCP know their patients or not? In our view, this question has not yet been answered satisfactorily. Once we have clarified what is meant by "knowing the patient", we will show that the distinction is particularly relevant with regard to some thorny questions of autonomy in healthcare (e.g., regarding advance directives or paternalism in the name of autonomy), whereas the differences with regard to imperatives following from the principles of justice and beneficence seem to be smaller. We provide a detailed argument for why knowing the patient is ethically valuable in encounters in healthcare. Consequently, healthcare systems should provide fertile ground for HCP to get to know their patients, and structures that foster therapeutic continuity. For this to succeed, a number of questions still need to be clarified, which is an important task for medical ethics.

The phantasm of zero suicide.

Governments and non-governmental organisations are increasingly adopting a 'zero-suicide' goal, but what such a goal precisely involves is unclear. Ostensibly it strongly prioritises the prevention and elimination of all suicide. We argue that, so understood, a societal goal of zero suicide risks contravening several ethical principles. In terms of beneficence and non-maleficence, a 'zero-suicide' goal risks being inefficient and may burden or harm many people. Autonomy-wise, a blanket ban on all suicide is excessive. As regards social justice, zero suicide risks focusing on the symptoms of social malaise instead of the structures causing it. With respect to transparency, a 'zero' goal that cannot be met makes these authorities look detached and risks frustration, distrust and, worse, stigmatisation of suicide and of mental health conditions. Instead, we propose a middle path for suicide prevention, founded on harm reduction, 'soft group paternalism' and efforts directed at increased quality of life for disadvantaged groups. Although soft group paternalism respects autonomy, this approach permits coercive interferences in certain circumstances. We hope that the justificatory framework tying together these largely familiar elements is novel and sensible.

Exploring the ethical complexity of pediatric organ transplant candidates and COVID-19 vaccination: Tensions between autonomy and beneficence, children and parents.

BACKGROUND: POT is emotionally sensitive due to cohort vulnerability, their lack of decisional capacity, and waitlist mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic has added complexity to the setting of pediatric transplantation, as well as living donation, due to tensions about COVID-19 vaccination for recipients, donors, and parent-caregivers. METHODS: In the context of COVID-19 vaccination, two ethicists present four pediatric donation and transplant dilemmas for ethical exploration and offer guidance to clinical teams, noting that mandates are controversial, and there is no global harmonization regarding requirements. RESULTS: As with all vaccinations, they are a tool of organ stewardship aimed to optimize outcomes and, in the setting of pediatrics, ensure optimal caregiving for these vulnerable recipients. Current evidence supports the ethical permissibility of COVID-19 vaccination mandates for transplant candidates aged 6 months and older. CONCLUSION: Our guidance considers the tensions of autonomy and beneficence and the ethical duty of organ stewardship. The harms of being unvaccinated and risking the harms of COVID-19 and long-COVID post-transplant support the ethical permissibility of vaccination mandates in countries where the vaccine has pediatric regulatory approval.

An autonomy-based approach to assisted suicide: a way to avoid the expressivist objection against assisted dying laws.

In several jurisdictions, irremediable suffering from a medical condition is a legal requirement for access to assisted dying. According to the expressivist objection, allowing assisted dying for a specific group of persons, such as those with irremediable medical conditions, expresses the judgment that their lives are not worth living. While the expressivist objection has often been used to argue that assisted dying should not be legalised, I show that there is an alternative solution available to its proponents. An autonomy-based approach to assisted suicide regards the provision of assisted suicide (but not euthanasia) as justified when it is autonomously requested by a person, irrespective of whether this is in her best interests. Such an approach has been put forward by a recent judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court, which understands assisted suicide as an expression of the person's right to a self-determined death. It does not allow for beneficence-based restrictions regarding the person's suffering or medical diagnosis and therefore avoids the expressivist objection. I argue that on an autonomy-based approach, assisted suicide should not be understood as a medical procedure but rather as the person's autonomous action.

Ethical problems with kindness in healthcare.

Kindness and its kindred concepts, compassion and empathy, are strongly valued in healthcare. But at the same time, health systems all too often treat people unfairly and cause harm. Is it possible that kindness actually contributes to these unkind outcomes? Here, I argue that, despite its attractive qualities, kindness can pose and perpetuate systemic problems in healthcare. By being discretionary, it can interfere with justice and non-maleficence. It can be problematic for autonomy too. Using the principalist lens allows us to visualise kindness more clearly and to dissect out its key qualities. Ideally, kindness should be not just beneficent but also respectful of the person, fair and non-maleficent. I use examples to illustrate the adverse impacts when kindness runs short on each. Finally, I propose that we can improve on this, by diversifying our approach to inclusion. Outgroups should be more included, as a way to mitigate discrimination wrought by discretionary kindness. But we can do better. Ingroup health professionals too often sit 'above the fray'. They should also be more included, but now as research subjects, so we can understand together how they benefit from discretionary kindness and deftly make it work for them and theirs.

Procreative Justice and genetic selection for skin colour.

Should nonprejudiced reproducers genetically select embryos for light skin under background conditions of racism and colourism, given that darker skin will be disadvantageous for their child? Many intuit that there are strong moral reasons not to select light skin in these contexts. I argue that existing procreative principles cannot adequately account for this judgement. Instead, I argue that a more compelling rationale for this intuition is that such selection completes an instance of race or colour injustice. Given this, I propose a new, complementary principle-Procreative Justice-which holds that reproducers have strong pro tanto moral reasons to avoid completing race and colour injustices via their selection choices. While these reasons may be overridden by competing considerations, they nonetheless continue to exert normative force.

Ethical considerations of the vaccine development process and vaccination: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide to control and cope with COVID-19 disease. To ensure vaccines benefit the global community, the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy should be examined and adhered to in the process of development, distribution, and implementation. This study, therefore, aimed to examine ethical considerations of vaccine development and vaccination processes. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was conducted based on the Arkesy and O'Malley protocol to identify eligible studies published until November 2021. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO databases. The search was conducted using combinations of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms and keywords for Ethics, COVID-19, and vaccines in abstract, keywords, and title fields to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We included any study that reported one of the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence in the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution and implementation of vaccinations. Letters, notes, protocols, and brief communications were excluded. In addition, we searched gray literature to include relevant studies (ProQuest database, conferences, and reports). Data were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In total, 43 studies were included. Ethical considerations concluded two themes: (1) production and (2) distribution and vaccination. The production process consisted of 16 codes and 4 main Categories, distribution and vaccination process consisted of 12 codes and 4 main Categories. Moreover, the ethical considerations of special groups were divided into four main groups: health care workers (HCWs) (five codes), children and adolescents (five codes), the elderly (one code), and ethnic and racial minorities (three codes). CONCLUSION: Due to the externalities of pandemics and the public and social benefits and harms of vaccination, it is not feasible to adhere to all four principles of medical ethics simultaneously and perfectly. This issue confronts individuals and policymakers with several moral dilemmas. It seems that decision-making based on the balance between social benefit and social harm is a better criterion in this regard, and the final decision should be made based on maximizing the public benefit and minimizing the public harm.

Should Artificial Intelligence be used to support clinical ethical decision-making? A systematic review of reasons.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers have to make ethically complex clinical decisions which may be a source of stress. Researchers have recently introduced Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications to assist in clinical ethical decision-making. However, the use of such tools is controversial. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the reasons given in the academic literature for and against their use. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Philpapers.org and Google Scholar were searched for all relevant publications. The resulting set of publications was title and abstract screened according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 44 papers whose full texts were analysed using the Kuckartz method of qualitative text analysis. RESULTS: Artificial Intelligence might increase patient autonomy by improving the accuracy of predictions and allowing patients to receive their preferred treatment. It is thought to increase beneficence by providing reliable information, thereby, supporting surrogate decision-making. Some authors fear that reducing ethical decision-making to statistical correlations may limit autonomy. Others argue that AI may not be able to replicate the process of ethical deliberation because it lacks human characteristics. Concerns have been raised about issues of justice, as AI may replicate existing biases in the decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: The prospective benefits of using AI in clinical ethical decision-making are manifold, but its development and use should be undertaken carefully to avoid ethical pitfalls. Several issues that are central to the discussion of Clinical Decision Support Systems, such as justice, explicability or human-machine interaction, have been neglected in the debate on AI for clinical ethics so far. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review is registered at Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wvcs9 ).