RESUMEN
This review paper analyzes the ethical implications of billing patients for electronic communication with physicians through electronic health records, a practice already adopted by medical institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic. The analysis assesses how billing aligns with pillars of medical ethics which include beneficence, respect for persons, and justice. Although billing may enhance communication, improve patient care, and alleviate physician burnout, concerns arise over potential consequences on patient autonomy, trust, and health care disparities. The review delves into the intricate balance of these ethical principles by first considering the potential benefits of incentivizing concise questions and improving physician workload management through billing. By reducing messages, this approach can potentially mitigate burnout and enhance care. It also acknowledges potential drawbacks such as deterring patients because of financial constraints and eroding trust in physicians and the medical team. It emphasizes the necessity of thoroughly examining all aspects of this intricate ethical dilemma to formulate a nuanced solution that protects patient well-being while respecting physicians. We propose a middle-ground approach involving nominal and transparent billing on the basis of the question's complexity, urgency, and level of expertise required in the response. Transparent billing policies, up-front communication of costs, and potential fee waivers on the basis of socioeconomic status can address equity concerns and maintain patient trust. Striking a balance between the potential benefits and drawbacks of billing for patient questions is crucial in maintaining ethical patient-physician interactions and equitable health care provision. The analysis underscores the importance of aligning online patient-physician communication with ethical principles within the evolving digital health care landscape.
RESUMEN
Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Total glossectomy with total laryngectomy is a life-altering procedure reserved for extensive or recurrent head and neck cancer. There is minimal literature describing quality of life in these patients, partly due to high mortality rates. METHODS: Patients who had undergone a total glossectomy with laryngectomy between 2014 and 2021 at our institution, identified by chart review, were eligible. Four validated scales were used to assess quality of life and satisfaction with decision. RESULTS: Four of five survivors agreed to participate. The average scores for the Satisfaction with Decision scale and the University of Washington Quality of Life scale were 4.4/5 and 70/100, respectively, showing that patients were satisfied with their decision and quality of life. However, the average function score for the UW-QoL scale, 36.4/100, highlights negative effects of the procedure on mood, oral function, and activity. CONCLUSIONS: This case description provides a picture of patients' quality of life after total glossectomy with laryngectomy, which may be useful for counseling future patients.
