Open Access Medical Journals: Promise, Perils, and Pitfalls.

The number of both print and electronic open access (OA) journals has increased dramatically. Although electronic availability of information on the Internet may offer greater potential for information sharing, it also gives rise to "predatory" journals and deceptive publishers. In this Invited Commentary, the authors describe both the opportunities and potential perils that come with OA publications.Definitions for four models of legitimate OA are provided: the gold model, the green model, the platinum model, and the hybrid model. Benefits and risks of each model are discussed. The authors also distinguish between legitimate OA journals and predatory journals, highlighting several existing tools and resources for distinguishing between the two.Finally, the authors provide a checklist to help authors evaluate the policies and processes of journals and thereby avoid predatory publications.

The Ethics of Real-Time EMS Direction: Suggested Curricular Content.

Ethical dilemmas can create moral distress in even the most experienced emergency physicians (EPs). Following reasonable and justified approaches can help alleviate such distress. The purpose of this article is to guide EPs providing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) direction to navigate through common ethical issues confronted in the prehospital delivery of care, including protecting privacy and confidentiality, decision-making capacity and refusal of treatment, withholding of treatment, and termination of resuscitation (TOR). This requires a strong foundation in the principles and theories underlying sound ethical decisions that EPs and prehospital providers make every day in good faith, but will now also make with more awareness and conscientiousness. Brenner JM , Aswegan AL , Vearrier LE , Basford JB , Iserson KV . The ethics of real-time EMS direction: suggested curricular content. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(2):201-212.

Ethical challenges in Emergency Medical Services: controversies and recommendations.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers face many ethical issues while providing prehospital care to children and adults. Although provider judgment plays a large role in the resolution of conflicts at the scene, it is important to establish protocols and policies, when possible, to address these high-risk and complex situations. This article describes some of the common situations with ethical underpinnings encountered by EMS personnel and managers including denying or delaying transport of patients with non-emergency conditions, use of lights and sirens for patient transport, determination of medical futility in the field, termination of resuscitation, restriction of EMS provider duty hours to prevent fatigue, substance abuse by EMS providers, disaster triage and difficulty in switching from individual care to mass-casualty care, and the challenges of child maltreatment recognition and reporting. A series of ethical questions are proposed, followed by a review of the literature and, when possible, recommendations for management.

Gifts to physicians from industry: the debate evolves.

In October 2009, the board of directors of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) approved a major revision to ACEP's "Gifts to Emergency Physicians from Industry" policy. The revised policy is a response to increasing debate and calls for restriction of the long-standing biomedical industry practice of giving promotional gifts to individual physicians. This article outlines the history of professional attention to gift giving and reviews recent contributions to the ongoing debate over its justifiability, including professional association recommendations for limitation or prohibition of the practice. The article concludes with a description of the provisions of the revised ACEP gifts policy and brief reflection on the future of this practice.

Fight or flight: the ethics of emergency physician disaster response.

Most disaster plans depend on using emergency physicians, nurses, emergency department support staff, and out-of-hospital personnel to maintain the health care system's front line during crises that involve personal risk to themselves or their families. Planners automatically assume that emergency health care workers will respond. However, we need to ask: Should they, and will they, work rather than flee? The answer involves basic moral and personal issues. This article identifies and examines the factors that influence health care workers' decisions in these situations. After reviewing physicians' response to past disasters and epidemics, we evaluate how much danger they actually faced. Next, we examine guidelines from medical professional organizations about physicians' duty to provide care despite personal risks, although we acknowledge that individuals will interpret and apply professional expectations and norms according to their own situation and values. The article goes on to articulate moral arguments for a duty to treat during disasters and social crises, as well as moral reasons that may limit or override such a duty. How fear influences behavior is examined, as are the institutional and social measures that can be taken to control fear and to encourage health professionals to provide treatment in crisis situations. Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of effective risk communication in enabling health care professionals and the public to make informed and defensible decisions during disasters. We conclude that the decision to stay or leave will ultimately depend on individuals' risk assessment and their value systems. Preparations for the next pandemic or disaster should include policies that encourage emergency physicians, who are inevitably among those at highest risk, to "stay and fight."