Six Propositions against Ageism in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The risk of developing severe illness from COVID-19 and of dying from it increases with age. This statistical association has led to numerous highly problematic policy suggestions and comments revealing underlying ageist attitudes and promoting age discrimination. Such attitudes are based on negative stereotypes on the health and functioning of older adults. As a result, the lives of older people are disvalued, including in possible triage situations and in the potential limitation of some measures against the spread of the pandemic to older adults. These outcomes are unjustified and unethical. We develop six propositions against the ageism underlying these suggestions to spur a more adequate response to the current pandemic in which the needs and dignity of older people are respected.

Ethics and Global Governance of Human Germline Genome Editing: The Problem of Techno-Scientific Colonialist Paternalism.

I want to enrich the debate about the ethics and governance of human germline editing (HGE) by emphasizing an underappreciated, yet important, set of concerns regarding exclusionary practices, norms, and efforts that impede a broader discussion about the subject. The possibility for establishing a binding, global, regulatory framework is influenced by economic and geopolitical factors as well as historical processes and sociopolitical problems, such as anti-scientific social movements and the politicization of science. Likewise, it is influenced by different understanding, epistemic resources, and goals between the CRISPR/genome editing community and the rest of society. In this Perspective, I explain the concept of "techno-scientific colonialist paternalism" and why it negatively affects our discussion around HGE. I also discuss the pitfalls of scientific self-regulation, and finally, I advocate that the implementation of HGE should cease to allow time and care for a thoughtful global discussion to emerge.

Resolved and unresolved bioethical authenticity problems.

Respect for autonomy is a central moral principle in bioethics. It is sometimes argued that authenticity, i.e., being "real," "genuine," "true to oneself," or similar, is crucial to a person's autonomy. Patients sometimes make what appears to be inauthentic decisions, such as when (decision-competent) anorexia nervosa patients refuse treatment to avoid gaining weight, despite that the risk of harm is very high. If such decisions are inauthentic, and therefore non-autonomous, it may be the case they should be overridden for paternalist reasons. However, it is not clear what justifies the judgment that someone or something is inauthentic. This article discusses one recent theory of what justifies judgments of inauthenticity. It is argued that the theory is seriously limited, as it only provides guidance in three out of nine identified cases. There are at least six authenticity-related problems to be solved, and autonomy theorists thus have reason to engage with the topic of authenticity in practical biomedicine.

Neonatology in Austria: ethics to improve practice.

In the world of Austrian neonatal intensive care units, the role of ethics is recognized only partially. The normatively tense cases that are at the backdrop of this essay concern the situations around the limit of viability (weeks 22 + 0 days to 25 + 6 days of gestation), which is the point in the development of an extremely preterm infant at which there are chances of extra-uterine survival. This essay first outlines the key explicit ethical challenges that are mainly concerned with notions of uncertainty and best interest. Then, it attempts to elucidate the less explicit ethical challenges related to the notion of nudging in the neonatal practice and argue that the role of ethics needs to be recognized more-with the focus on the role of virtue ethics-in order to improve the practice of neonatal medicine.

Paternalism and certitude.

When paternalism is deemed morally justified, weak paternalism-which restricts itself to assisting the target of paternalism realize his own preferences-is the preferred (less problematic) alternative. In determining the appropriateness of weak paternalism, the level of certitude of the paternalist regarding the correctness of her assessment of the true preferences of the one-paternalized is obviously a crucial factor. Yet in the ethics of paternalism this parameter has escaped systematic treatment. This paper aims to initiate discussion on this indispensable consideration for weak paternalism. Analysing a real-life dilemma of paternalism in healthcare, the paper focuses on the theoretical question of how the paternalist can optimize her certitude by combining personal knowledge of the individual patient with population data on treatment refusal/consent of patients facing similar decisions. The paper presents an outline of a decision-making scheme that can be valuable in medical ethics and beyond.

On being paternalistic.

OBJECTIVE: What does 'being paternalistic' mean? CONCLUSION: Being paternalistic embodies a complex set of ideas that are currently viewed pejoratively, but which retain at its core, the goal of doing something good.

Palliative care in Mozambique: Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practices

Background Palliative care is an essential part of medical practice but it remains limited, inaccessible, or even absent in low andmiddle income countries. Objectives Toevaluate the general knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Mozambican physicians on palliative care. Methods Across­sectional observational study was conducted between August 2018 and January 2019 in the 3mainhospitals of Mozambique, in addition to the only hospital with a standalone palliative care service. Data was collected from a self-administered survey directed to physicians in services with oncology patients. Results Twohundredandsevenoutof306physicians surveyed answered the questionnaire. The median physician age was 38years. Fifty-five percent were males, and 49.8% residents. Themostcommonmedicalspecialty was surgery with 26.1%. Eighty percent of physicians answered that palliative care should be provided to patients when no curative treatments are available; 87% believed that early integration of palliative care can improve patients' quality of life; 73% regularly inform patients of a cancer diagnosis; 60% prefer to inform the diagnosis and prognosis to the family/caregivers. Fifty percent knew what a "do-not-resuscitate" order is, and 51% knew what palliative sedation is. Only 25% of the participants answered correctly all questions on palliative care general knowledge, and only 24% of the participants knew all answers about euthanasia. Conclusions Mozambican physicians in the main hospitals of Mozambique have cursory knowledge about palliative care. Paternalism and the family-centered model are the most prevalent. Moreinterventions and training of professionals are needed to improve palliative care knowledge andpractice in the country.

Emerging Ethical Challenges in Critical Care for the 21st Century: A Case-Based Discussion.

Ethical challenges for doctors and other health care professionals have existed since the practice of medicine began. Many of the oldest challenges live on to this day, such as who has more authority to make key decisions (autonomy vs. paternalism) and what are the boundaries of life at the beginning and at the end. Two powerful driving forces are new technologies and an ever-changing culture and society. The practice of medicine in intensive care units (ICUs) has been the source of many ethical challenges. Once firmly fixed concepts, such as death or "brain death" are now coming under increasing debate. In other areas, the concept of patient autonomy has been used to request life-prolonging therapies, once thought "futile." New technologies for procreation have necessitated new ethical challenges as well. In this paper, we will use a series of cases, based on experiences from our hospital ethics committee, that occurred over the course of several years and illustrate ethical challenges which are either new to us or not new but growing in frequency due to technological or societal changes. Each one of these topics is complex and worthy of its own large review but for this overview, we will briefly discuss the key points of each dilemma.

Hospital ethics reflection groups: a learning and development resource for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: An ethics reflection group (ERG) is one of a number of ethics support services developed to better handle ethical challenges in healthcare. The aim of this article is to evaluate the significance of ERGs in psychiatric and general hospital departments in Denmark. METHODS: This is a qualitative action research study, including systematic text condensation of 28 individual interviews and 4 focus groups with clinicians, ethics facilitators and ward managers. Short written descriptions of the ethical challenges presented in the ERGs also informed the analysis of significance. RESULTS: A recurring ethical challenge for clinicians, in a total of 63 cases described and assessed in 3 ethical reflection groups, is to strike a balance between respect for patient autonomy, paternalistic responsibility, professional responsibilities and institutional values. Both in psychiatric and general hospital departments, the study participants report a positive impact of ERG, which can be divided into three categories: 1) Significance for patients, 2) Significance for clinicians, and 3) Significance for ward managers. In wards characterized by short-time patient admissions, the cases assessed were retrospective and the beneficiaries of improved dialogue mainly future patients rather than the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge presented. In wards with longer admissions, the patients concerned also benefitted from the dialogue in the ERG. CONCLUSION: This study indicates a positive significance and impact of ERGs; constituting an interdisciplinary learning resource for clinicians, creating significance for themselves, the ward managers and the organization. By introducing specific examples, this study indicates that ERGs have significance for the patients discussed in the specific ethical challenge, but mostly indirectly through learning among clinicians and development of clinical practice. More research is needed to further investigate the impact of ERGs seen from the perspectives of patients and relatives.

Truth-telling and doctor-assisted death as perceived by Israeli physicians.

BACKGROUND: Medicine has undergone substantial changes in the way medical dilemmas are being dealt with. Here we explore the attitude of Israeli physicians to two debatable dilemmas: disclosing the full truth to patients about a poor medical prognosis, and assisting terminally ill patients in ending their lives. METHODS: Attitudes towards medico-ethical dilemmas were examined through a nationwide online survey conducted among members of the Israeli Medical Association, yielding 2926 responses. RESULTS: Close to 60% of the respondents supported doctor-assisted death, while one third rejected it. Half of the respondents opposed disclosure of the full truth about a poor medical prognosis, and the others supported it. Support for truth-telling was higher among younger physicians, and support for doctor-assisted death was higher among females and among physicians practicing in hospitals. One quarter of respondents supported both truth-telling and assisted death, thereby exhibiting respect for patients' autonomy. This approach characterizes younger doctors and is less frequent among general practitioners. Another quarter of the respondents rejected truth-telling, yet supported assisted death, thereby manifesting compassionate pragmatism. This was associated with medical education, being more frequent among doctors educated in Israel, than those educated abroad. All this suggests that both personal attributes and professional experience affect attitudes of physicians to ethical questions. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of attitudes to two debatable medical dilemmas allowed portrayal of the multi-faceted medico-ethical scene in Israel. Moreover, this study, demonstrates that one can probe the ethical atmosphere of a given medical community, at various time points by using a few carefully selected questions.

Informed consent and nudging.

In order to avoid patient abuse, under normal situations before performing a medical intervention on a patient, a physician must obtain informed consent from that patient, where to give genuine informed consent a patient must be competent, understand her condition, her options and their expected risks and benefits, and must expressly consent to one of those options. However, many patients refrain from the option that their physician believes to be best, and many physicians worry that their patients make irrational healthcare decisions, hindering their ability to provide efficient healthcare for their patients. Some philosophers have proposed a solution to this problem: they advocate that physicians nudge their patients to steer them towards their physician's preferred option. A nudge is any influence designed to predictably alter a person's behavior without limiting their options or giving them reasons to act. Proponents of nudging contend that nudges are consistent with obtaining informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with genuine informed consent, as it violates a physician's obligation to tell their patients the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during adequate disclosure.

Computer knows best? The need for value-flexibility in medical AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being developed for use in medicine, including for diagnosis and in treatment decision making. The use of AI in medical treatment raises many ethical issues that are yet to be explored in depth by bioethicists. In this paper, I focus specifically on the relationship between the ethical ideal of shared decision making and AI systems that generate treatment recommendations, using the example of IBM's Watson for Oncology. I argue that use of this type of system creates both important risks and significant opportunities for promoting shared decision making. If value judgements are fixed and covert in AI systems, then we risk a shift back to more paternalistic medical care. However, if designed and used in an ethically informed way, AI could offer a potentially powerful way of supporting shared decision making. It could be used to incorporate explicit value reflection, promoting patient autonomy. In the context of medical treatment, we need value-flexible AI that can both respond to the values and treatment goals of individual patients and support clinicians to engage in shared decision making.

Drawing the line on physician-assisted death.

Drawing the line on physician assistance in physician-assisted death (PAD) continues to be a contentious issue in many legal jurisdictions across the USA, Canada and Europe. PAD is a medical practice that occurs when physicians either prescribe or administer lethal medication to their patients. As more legal jurisdictions establish PAD for at least some class of patients, the question of the proper scope of this practice has become pressing. This paper presents an argument for restricting PAD to the terminally ill that can be accepted by defenders as well as critics of PAD for the terminally ill. The argument appeals to fairness-based paternalism and the social meaning of medical practice. These two considerations interact in various ways, as the paper explains. The right way to think about the social meaning of medical practice bears on fair paternalism as it relates to PAD and vice versa. The paper contends that these considerations have substantial force when directed against proposals to extend PAD to non-terminally ill patients, but considerably less force when directed against PAD for the terminally ill. The paper pays special attention to the case of non-terminally ill patients who suffer from treatment-resistant depression, as these patients present a potentially strong case for extending PAD beyond the terminally ill.

The rebirth of medical paternalism: An NHS Trust v Y.

Over the last quarter of a century, English medical law has taken an increasingly firm stand against medical paternalism. This is exemplified by cases such as Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, Chester v Afshar, and Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. In relation to decision-making on behalf of incapacitous adults, the actuating principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is respect for patient autonomy. The only lawful acts in relation to an incapacitous person are acts which are in the best interests of that person. The 2005 Act requires a holistic assessment of best interests. Best interests are wider than 'medical best interests'. The 2018 judgment of the Supreme Court in An NHS Trust v Y (which concerned the question of whether a court needed to authorise the withdrawal of life-sustaining clinically administered nutrition/hydration (CANH) from patients in prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC)) risks reviving medical paternalism. The judgment, in its uncritical endorsement of guidelines from various medical organisations, may lend inappropriate authority to medical judgments of best interests and silence or render impotent non-medical contributions to the debate about best interests-so frustrating the 2005 Act. To minimise these dangers, a system of meditation should be instituted whenever it is proposed to withdraw (at least) life-sustaining CANH from (at least) patients with PDOC, and there needs to be a guarantee of access to the courts for families, carers and others who wish to challenge medical conclusions about withdrawal. This would entail proper public funding for such challenges.

Nudging in nursing.

Nudging is a concept in behavioural science, political theory and economics that proposes indirect suggestions to try to achieve non-forced compliance and to influence the decision making and behaviour of groups and individuals. Researchers in medical ethics are currently discussing whether nudging is ethically permissible in healthcare. In this article, we examine current knowledge about how different decisions (rational and pre-rational decisions, major and minor decisions) are made and how this decision-making process pertains to patients. We view this knowledge in light of the nursing project and the ongoing debate regarding the ethical legitimacy of nudging in healthcare. We argue that it is insufficient to discuss nudging in nursing and healthcare in light of free will and patient autonomy alone. Sometimes, nurses must take charge and exhibit leadership in the nurse-patient relationship. From the perspective of nursing as leadership, nudging becomes a useful tool for directing and guiding patients towards the shared goals of health, recovery and independence and away from suffering. The use of nudging in nursing to influence patients' decisions and actions must be in alignment with the nursing project and in accordance with patients' own values and goals.

Vaginal delivery: An argument against requiring consent.

Birth by vaginal delivery is an evolutionary process refined over millennia to create a sustainable and safe method of human reproduction. A key argument against requiring consent for vaginal birth acknowledges that from an evolutionary point of view, vaginal delivery has successfully accompanied human development and remains the natural and default form of human birth. Concern has been raised by the Montgomery court case in the United Kingdom; however, the ruling does not mean consent is required for normal birth. What it does reaffirm is the need to engage patients in their care decisions when complications occur in pregnancy and delivery. Effective communication, rather than a legalistic consent pathway, is required for positive healthcare outcomes.

We need to treat pregnant women as adults: Women should be consented for an attempt at normal vaginal birth as for operative delivery, with risks and potential complications explained.

Since the mid-90s, Australian law has required doctors to disclose material risks of proposed treatment. Medical practitioners have had two decades to adapt, and, by and large, patient autonomy is acknowledged and respected by obtaining 'informed consent'. While problems with obtaining consent do surface in medico-legal litigation, practitioners are generally aware of the need to do so and usually comply with requirements. However, not in obstetrics. Here, even if material risk of a serious adverse event in an attempt at vaginal birth in a given case is over 50% (as it would be in the case of a 35-year-old primigravida at 41 + 3) obtaining informed consent is the exception rather than the rule. This degree of paternalism is not just unethical and immoral. It is illegal - and it needs to change.