Using symbiotic empirical ethics to explore the significance of relationships to clinical ethics: findings from the Reset Ethics research project.

BACKGROUND: At the beginning of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, many non-Covid healthcare services were suspended. In April 2020, the Department of Health in England mandated that non-Covid services should resume, alongside the continuing pandemic response. This 'resetting' of healthcare services created a unique context in which it became critical to consider how ethical considerations did (and should) underpin decisions about integrating infection control measures into routine healthcare practices. We draw on data collected as part of the 'NHS Reset Ethics' project, which explored the everyday ethical challenges of resetting England's NHS maternity and paediatrics services during the pandemic. METHODS: Healthcare professionals and members of the public participated in interviews and focus group discussions. The qualitative methods are reported in detail elsewhere. The focus of this article is our use of Frith's symbiotic empirical ethics methodology to work from our empirical findings towards the normative suggestion that clinical ethics should explicitly attend to the importance of relationships in clinical practice. This methodology uses a five-step approach to refine and develop ethical theory based on a naturalist account of ethics that sees practice and theory as symbiotically related. RESULTS: The Reset project data showed that changed working practices caused ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, and that infection prevention and control measures represented harmful barriers to the experience of receiving and offering care. For healthcare professionals, offering care as part of a relational interaction was an ethically important dimension of healthcare delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that foregrounding the importance of relationships across a hospital community will better promote the ethically important multi-directional expression of caring between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. We offer two suggestions for making progress towards such a relational approach. First, that there is a change of emphasis in clinical ethics practice to explicitly acknowledge the importance of the relationships (including with their healthcare team) within which the patient is held. Second, that organisational decision-making should take into account the moral significance afforded to caring relationships by healthcare professionals, and the role such relationships can play in the negotiation of ethical challenges.

Delivering compassionate NHS healthcare: A qualitative study exploring the ethical implications of resetting NHS maternity and paediatric services following the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A distinction can be drawn between healthcare, where compassion is evident, and the functional delivery of health services. Measures to curb the spread of COVID-19, such as personal protective equipment, telehealth, and visiting restrictions created barriers to service delivery and put pressure on healthcare. Through 37 qualitative interviews with NHS senior managers (n = 11), health professionals (n = 26), and 5 focus group discussions with members of the public (n = 26), we explored experiences of the everyday ethical tensions created as services were being re-established following the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Our analysis enriches an understanding of compassionate care as outlined in NHS operational documents - covering the emotional, moral, and relational components of healthcare beyond the functionalities of treatment. From this analysis, we consider the normative standards underpinning NHS healthcare, concluding that, wherever possible, offering compassionate healthcare to patients and their families should be facilitated, and health professionals should themselves be compassionately supported in the workplace. Our findings foreground the need to consider the consequences of the short-term adoption of a functional treatment approach, including strategies that support health professionals and inform the public, to avoid the long-term damage caused by the fracturing of compassionate healthcare.

Update on the ethical, legal and technical challenges of translating xenotransplantation.

This manuscript reports on a landmark symposium on the ethical, legal and technical challenges of xenotransplantation in the UK. King's College London, with endorsement from the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT), brought together a group of experts in xenotransplantation science, ethics and law to discuss the ethical, regulatory and technical challenges surrounding translating xenotransplantation into the clinical setting. The symposium was the first of its kind in the UK for 20 years. This paper summarises the content of the expert lectures showcasing the progress which has been made in xenotransplantation including-the history of xenotransplantation, advances in gene edited animals and progress towards clinical xenotransplantation. We then set out the ethical and legal issues still to be resolved. Finally, we report the themes of the roundtable discussion highlighting areas of consensus and controversy. While the detail of the legal discussion was directed towards the UK, the principles and summary reported here are intended to be applicable to any jurisdiction seeking to implement clinical xenotransplantation.

RELATIONSHIPS, RIGHTS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (RE)VIEWING THE NHS CONSTITUTION FOR THE POST-PANDEMIC 'NEW NORMAL'.

Action needs to be taken to map out the fairest way to meet the needs of all NHS stakeholders in the post-pandemic 'new normal'. In this article, we review the NHS Constitution, looking at it from a relational perspective and suggesting that it offers a useful starting point for such a project, but that new ways of thinking are required to accommodate the significant changes the pandemic has made to the fabric of the NHS. These new ways of thinking should encompass concepts of solidarity, care, and (reciprocal) responsibility, grounded in an acceptance of the importance of relationships in society. To this end, we explore and emphasise the importance of our interconnections as NHS stakeholders and 're-view' the NHS Constitution from a relational perspective, concentrating on the rights and responsibilities it describes for patients and the public as NHS stakeholders. We argue that the NHS Constitution, of which most stakeholders are probably unaware, can be used as a tool to engage us, and to catalyse conversation about how our responsibilities as NHS stakeholders should change in the post-pandemic 'new normal'.

UK pharmacists' experiences and perceptions of conflict between personal ethical commitments and professional obligations, as set out in professional guidance.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the General Pharmaceutical Council (UK) issued new Standards for Pharmacy Professionals and supporting guidance, Guidance on Religion, Personal Values and Beliefs, to help pharmacists when their religion, personal values or beliefs might impact on their provision of services. OBJECTIVE: To understand how pharmacists in the UK experience and perceive conflicts between their personal ethical commitments (matters of conscience) and professional obligations in guidance from their regulator. METHODS: Twenty-four registered pharmacists were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. KEY FINDINGS: Participants were generally aware of the Council's consultations and responded if they had something to say, or it was their role to respond. Age and stage, confidence, and workload impacted on whether participants responded to Council consultations, and, therefore, on the range of views heard. The professional obligation to provide person-centred care (PCC) was central to participants' practice, and personal ethical commitments were important to some. Conflicts between such commitments and professional obligations were rare, and it was generally believed that the former should be accommodated, as far as possible, but not imposed on others. Personal ethical commitments could affect PCC, and some suggested that the Council's Guidance was not clear on pharmacists' responsibilities in this regard. CONCLUSIONS: Clarification on the role of personal ethical commitments in professional practice, particularly in relation to providing PCC, would be useful. Clearer guidance on how pharmacists should manage perceived conflicts between their personal ethical commitments and their professional obligations would also be welcomed.

Which ethical values underpin England's National Health Service reset of paediatric and maternity services following COVID-19: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify ethical values guiding decision making in resetting non-COVID-19 paediatric surgery and maternity services in the National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: A rapid review of academic and grey literature sources from 29 April to 31 December 2020, covering non-urgent, non-COVID-19 healthcare. Sources were thematically synthesised against an adapted version of the UK Government's Pandemic Flu Ethical Framework to identify underpinning ethical principles. The strength of normative engagement and the quality of the sources were also assessed. SETTING: NHS maternity and paediatric surgery services in England. RESULTS: Searches conducted 8 September-12 October 2020, and updated in March 2021, identified 48 sources meeting the inclusion criteria. Themes that arose include: staff safety; collaborative working - including mutual dependencies across the healthcare system; reciprocity; and inclusivity in service recovery, for example, by addressing inequalities in service access. Embedded in the theme of staff and patient safety is embracing new ways of working, such as the rapid roll out of telemedicine. On assessment, many sources did not explicitly consider how ethical principles might be applied or balanced against one another. Weaknesses in the policy sources included a lack of public and user involvement and the absence of monitoring and evaluation criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that relationality is a prominent ethical principle informing resetting NHS non-COVID-19 paediatric surgery and maternity services. Sources explicitly highlight the ethical importance of seeking to minimise disruption to caring and dependent relationships, while simultaneously attending to public safety. Engagement with ethical principles was ethics-lite, with sources mentioning principles in passing rather than explicitly applying them. This leaves decision makers and healthcare professionals without an operationalisable ethical framework to apply to difficult reset decisions and risks inconsistencies in decision making. We recommend further research to confirm or refine the usefulness of the reset phase ethical framework developed through our analysis.

Anticipating Issues with Capacitous Pregnant Women: United Lincolnshire NHS Hospitals Trust v CD [2019] EWCOP 24 and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM) v R [2020] EWCOP 4.

In United Lincolnshire NHS Hospitals Trust v CD and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLAM) v R, the Court of Protection was asked to make anticipatory and contingent declarations relating to the obstetric care and mode of delivery for currently capacitous women who were near to their due date but not yet in labour. In this case note I explore the judges' reasoning on the legal basis for these declarations. In so doing, I consider the wider implications of employing this seemingly new addition to the Court of Protection's armoury.

Is conscientious objection incompatible with healthcare professionalism?

Is conscientious objection (CO) necessarily incompatible with the role and duties of a healthcare professional? An influential minority of writers on the subject think that it is. Here, we outline the positive case for accommodating CO and examine one particular type of incompatibility claim, namely that CO is fundamentally incompatible with proper healthcare professionalism because the attitude of the conscientious objector exists in opposition to the disposition (attitudes and underlying character) that we should expect from a 'good' healthcare professional. We ask first whether this claim is true in principle: what is the disposition of a 'good' healthcare professional, and how does CO align with or contradict it? Then, we consider practical compatibility, acknowledging the need to identify appropriate limits on the exercise of CO and considering what those limits might be. We conclude that CO is not fundamentally incompatible - either in principle or in practice - with good healthcare professionalism.

WHAT ROLE SHOULD PUBLIC OPINION PLAY IN ETHICO-LEGAL DECISION MAKING? THE EXAMPLE OF SELECTING SEX FOR NON-MEDICAL REASONS USING PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS.

In this article, we consider the prohibition on the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis to select an embryo on the basis of its sex for non -: medical reasons. We use this as a case study to explore the role that public consultations have and should play in ethico-legal decision-making. Until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, non-medical sex selection of an embryo was not statutorily regulated, but it was the policy of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that such selection should not occur. However, since 2009, it has been a criminal offence to select an embryo on the basis of its sex for non-medical reasons. We consider the reasons given for this change and explore the role that 'public opinion' had in the decision-making process. On the face of it, asking the public what they think seems reasonable, fair and democratic, and those who are not in favour of public consultations being accorded great weight in matters of policy may appear out of touch and as wanting to impose their moral views on the public at large. But there are problems with doing so, especially when seeking to regulate ethically controversial issues. We discuss whether regulation should be influenced by public opinion obtained via 'public consultations', and utilise sex selection for non-medical reasons as an example of how (apparently) public opinion was used to support the criminalisation of this practice.

'In good conscience': conscience-based exemptions and proper medical treatment.

Lack of clarity about the proper limits of conscientious refusal to participate in particular healthcare practices has given rise to fears that, in the absence of clear parameters, conscience-based exemptions may become increasingly widespread, leading to intolerable burdens on health professionals, patients, and institutions. Here, we identify three factors which clarify the proper scope of conscience-based exemptions: the liminal zone of 'proper medical treatment' as their territorial extent; some criteria for genuine conscientiousness; and the fact that the exercise of a valid conscience-based exemption carries certain duties with it. These restricting factors should reassure those who worry that recognising rights of conscience at all inevitably risks rampant subjectivity and self-interest on the part of professionals. At the same time, they delineate a robust conscience zone: where a claim of conscience relates to treatment with liminal status and satisfies the criteria for conscientious character, as well as the conditions for conscientious performance, it deserves muscular legal protection.

One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and 'informed' consent.

Until 2008, if doctors followed the General Medical Council's (GMC's) guidance on providing information prior to obtaining a patient's consent to treatment, they would be going beyond what was technically required by the law. It was hoped that the common law would catch up with this guidance and encourage respect for patients' autonomy by facilitating informed decision-making. Regrettably, this has not occurred. For once, the law's inability to keep up with changing medical practice and standards is not the problem. The authors argue that while the common law has moved forward and started to recognise the importance of patient autonomy and informed decision-making, the GMC has taken a step back in their 2008 guidance on consent. Indeed, doctors are now required to tell their patients less than they were in 1998 when the last guidance was produced. This is an unfortunate development and the authors urge the GMC to revisit their guidance.