Navigating Care Refusal and Noncompliance in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: For many emergency physicians (EPs), deciding whether or not to allow a patient suffering the ill effects of opioid use to refuse care is the most frequent and fraught situation in which they encounter issues of decision-making capacity, informed refusal, and autonomy. Despite the frequency of this issue and the well-known impacts of opioid use disorder on decision-making, the medical ethics community has offered little targeted analysis or guidance regarding these situations. DISCUSSION: As a result, EPs demonstrate significant variability in how they evaluate and respond to them, with highly divergent understandings and application of concepts such as decision-making capacity, informed consent, autonomy, legal repercussions, and strategies to resolve the clinical dilemma. In this paper, we seek to provide more clarity to this issue for the EPs. CONCLUSIONS: Successfully navigating this issue requires that EPs understand the specific effects that opioid use disorder has on decision-making, and how that in turn bears on the ethical concepts of autonomy, capacity, and informed refusal. Understanding these concepts can lead to helpful strategies to resolve these commonly-encountered dilemmas.

An Ethics Committee's Evaluation of Normothermic Regional Perfusion (NRP) in 2018-Unsatisfactory Answers Then-and Now.

An adult university hospital ethics committee evaluated a proposed TA-NRP protocol in the fall of 2018. The protocol raised ethical concerns about violation of the Uniform Determination of Death Act and the prohibition known as the Dead Donor Rule, with potential resultant legal consequences. An additional concern was the potential for increased mistrust by the community of organ donation and transplantation. The ethics committee evaluated the responses to these concerns as unable to surmount the ethical and legal boundaries and the ethics committee declined to endorse the procedure. These concerns endure.

Correction to "Best practice guidelines for evaluating patients in custody in the emergency department".

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1002/emp2.13143.].

Neither Ethical nor Prudent: Why Not to Choose Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

In transplant medicine, the use of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in donation after circulatory determination of death raises ethical difficulties. NRP is objectionable because it restores the donor's circulation, thus invalidating a death declaration based on the permanent cessation of circulation. NRP's defenders respond with arguments that are tortuous and factually inaccurate and depend on introducing extraneous concepts into the law. However, results comparable to NRP's-more and higher-quality organs and more efficient allocation-can be achieved by removing organs from deceased donors and using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to support the organs outside the body, without jeopardizing confidence in transplantation's legal and ethical foundations. Given the controversy that NRP generates and the convoluted justifications made for it, we recommend a prudential approach we call "ethical parsimony," which holds that, in the choice between competing means of achieving a result, the ethically simpler one is to be preferred. This approach makes clear that policy-makers should favor NMP over NRP.

Best practice guidelines for evaluating patients in custody in the emergency department.

Patients in custody due to arrest or incarceration are a vulnerable population that present a unique ethical and logistical challenge for emergency physicians (EPs). People incarcerated in the United States have a constitutional right to health care. When caring for these patients, EPs must balance their ethical obligations to the patient with security and safety concerns. They should refer to their institutional policy for guidance and their local, state, and federal laws, when applicable. Hospital legal counsel and risk management also can be helpful resources. EPs should communicate early and openly with law enforcement personnel to ensure security and emergency department staff safety is maintained while meeting the patient's medical needs. Physicians should consider the least restrictive restraints necessary to ensure security while allowing for medical evaluation and treatment. They should also protect patient privacy as much as possible within departmental constraints, promote the patient's autonomous medical decision-making, and be mindful of ways that medical information could interact with the legal system.

Duty to Family: Ethical Considerations in the Resuscitation Bay.

AbstractTo examine the ethical duty to patients and families in the setting of the resuscitation bay, we address a case with a focus on providing optimal care and communication to family members. We present a case of nonsurvivable traumatic injury in a minor, focusing on how allowing family more time at the bedside impacts the quality of death and what duty exists to maintain an emotionally optimal environment for family grieving and acceptance. Our analysis proposes tenets for patient and family-centric care that, in alignment with trauma-informed care principles, optimize the long-term well-being of the family, namely valuing family desires and sensitivity to location.

Revive and Refuse: Capacity, Autonomy, and Refusal of Care After Opioid Overdose.

Physicians generally recommend that patients resuscitated with naloxone after opioid overdose stay in the emergency department for a period of observation in order to prevent harm from delayed sequelae of opioid toxicity. Patients frequently refuse this period of observation despiteenefit to risk. Healthcare providers are thus confronted with the challenge of how best to protect the patient's interests while also respecting autonomy, including assessing whether the patient is making an autonomous choice to refuse care. Previous studies have shown that physicians have widely divergent approaches to navigating these conflicts. This paper reviews what is known about the effects of opioid use disorder on decision-making, and argues that some subset of these refusals are non-autonomous choices, even when patients appear to have decision making capacity. This conclusion has several implications for how physicians assess and respond to patients refusing medical recommendations after naloxone resuscitation.

PHYSICIANS' MORAL DUTIES DURING PANDEMICS.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics with devastating morbidity and mortality have occurred repeatedly throughout recorded history. Each new scourge seems to surprise governments, medical experts, and the public. The SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, for example, arrived as an unwelcome surprise to an unprepared world. DISCUSSION: Despite humanity's extensive experience with pandemics and their associated ethical dilemmas, no consensus has emerged on preferred normative standards to deal with them. In this article, we consider the ethical dilemmas faced by physicians who work in these risk-prone situations and propose a set of ethical norms for current and future pandemics. As front-line clinicians for critically ill patients during pandemics, emergency physicians will play a substantial role in making and implementing treatment allocation decisions. CONCLUSION: Our proposed ethical norms should help future physicians make morally challenging choices during pandemics.

Law enforcement information gathering in the emergency department: Legal and ethical background and practical approaches.

In the course of legal investigations, law enforcement officers may enlist emergency department (ED) personnel to gather information or forensic evidence, often with the intent of building cases against a patient. These situations create ethical conflicts between the emergency physician's obligations to the patient and society. This paper provides an overview of the ethical and legal considerations in ED forensic evidence collection and the general principles that emergency physicians should apply in these situations.

Interactions With Police in the Emergency Care of Children: Ethical and Legal Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency medicine providers may interface with law enforcement personnel (LEP) on behalf of their pediatric patients for a variety of reasons, from reporting child abuse to caring for children who are in police custody. Given the unique nature of caring for minors who may not have legal or medical autonomy, interactions with LEP can raise ethical concerns for emergency providers, specifically with regard to legal representation, developmental immaturity, and the civil rights of children and their parents/guardians. METHODS: We review 4 patient scenarios, based on real cases experienced by the authors, to demonstrate the legal and ethical issues that may arise when LEP are involved in the emergency care of a child. These scenarios discuss parental/guardian visitation for children in police custody in the emergency department (ED), the practice of making arrests on hospital grounds, and police interviews of children in the ED. RESULTS: Using the ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice, we offer recommendations for emergency providers on how to advocate for their pediatric patients in LEP custody within the constraints and protections of the law. We also suggest best practices for hospital systems to develop policies surrounding LEP activity in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: These nuanced situations require careful advocacy for the child and a collaborative approach between medical providers and LEP to balance the child's well-being with public safety. We offer recommendations here, and we maintain that clear, widely adopted best practices for the care of minors in LEP custody are long overdue.

Promoting Equity in Health Care through Human Flourishing, Justice, and Solidarity.

In this article, we develop a non-rights-based argument based on beneficence (i.e., the welfare of individuals and communities) and justice as the disposition to act justly to promote equity in health care resource allocation. To this end, we structured our analysis according to the following main sections. The first section examines the work of Amartya Sen and his equality of capabilities approach and outlines a framework of health care as a fundamental human need. In the subsequent section, we provide a definition of health equity based on the moral imperative to guarantee that every individual ought to have the freedom to pursue health goals and well-being. In the later part of the article, we outline a non-right approach to health care based on three pillars: (1) human flourishing, (2) justice as a disposition not a process, and (3) solidarity.

Civility in Health Care: A Moral Imperative.

Civility is an essential feature of health care, as it is in so many other areas of human interaction. The article examines the meaning of civility, reviews its origins, and provides reasons for its moral significance in health care. It describes common types of uncivil behavior by health care professionals, patients, and visitors in hospitals and other health care settings, and it suggests strategies to prevent and respond to uncivil behavior, including institutional codes of conduct and disciplinary procedures. The article concludes that uncivil behavior toward health care professionals, patients, and others subverts the moral goals of health care and is therefore unacceptable. Civility is a basic professional duty that health care professionals should embrace, model, and teach.

Artificial Intelligence in Emergency Medicine: Benefits, Risks, and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) can be described as the use of computers to perform tasks that formerly required human cognition. The American Medical Association prefers the term 'augmented intelligence' over 'artificial intelligence' to emphasize the assistive role of computers in enhancing physician skills as opposed to replacing them. The integration of AI into emergency medicine, and clinical practice at large, has increased in recent years, and that trend is likely to continue. DISCUSSION: AI has demonstrated substantial potential benefit for physicians and patients. These benefits are transforming the therapeutic relationship from the traditional physician-patient dyad into a triadic doctor-patient-machine relationship. New AI technologies, however, require careful vetting, legal standards, patient safeguards, and provider education. Emergency physicians (EPs) should recognize the limits and risks of AI as well as its potential benefits. CONCLUSIONS: EPs must learn to partner with, not capitulate to, AI. AI has proven to be superior to, or on a par with, certain physician skills, such as interpreting radiographs and making diagnoses based on visual cues, such as skin cancer. AI can provide cognitive assistance, but EPs must interpret AI results within the clinical context of individual patients. They must also advocate for patient confidentiality, professional liability coverage, and the essential role of specialty-trained EPs.