Using Patient Quotations in Chart Notes: A Clinical Ethics Perspective.

AbstractPer the OpenNotes directive of the 21st Century Cures Act implemented in 2021, patients and their legally recognized representatives must be able to access the electronic medical record in real time. This is an opportunity for clinical ethicists and other providers to reflect on their charting practices, particularly how and when they quote patients. Although using direct quotations is common because it seems to avoid misinterpretation, it may not always be appropriate. In this article, we discuss some of the risks and benefits of quoting in the context of OpenNotes and provide suggestions for how clinical ethicists can leverage their unique position to help mitigate some of these risks and promote more reflective charting practices among the teams they work with.

From Bridge to Destination? Ethical Considerations Related to Withdrawal of ECMO Support over the Objections of Capacitated Patients.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is typically viewed as a time-limited intervention-a bridge to recovery or transplant-not a destination therapy. However, some patients with decision-making capacity request continued ECMO support despite a poor prognosis for recovery and lack of viability as a transplant candidate. In response, critical care teams have asked for guidance regarding the ethical permissibility of unilateral withdrawal over the objections of a capacitated patient. In this article, we evaluate several ethical arguments that have been made in favor of withdrawal, including distributive justice, quality of life, patients' rights, professional integrity, and the Equivalence Thesis. We find that existing justifications for unilateral withdrawal of ECMO support in capacitated patients are problematic, which leads us to conclude that either: (1) additional ethical arguments are necessary to defend this approach or (2) the claim that it is not appropriate to use ECMO as a destination therapy should be questioned.

Does donor conception violate human dignity?

The moral acceptability of anonymous gamete donation remains contested. Although the view that the value of parent-child relationships should not depend on genetic ties is "nearly axiomatic" among philosophers and bioethicists, one well-known dissenter remains: David Velleman. I argue that most rebuttals to Velleman have simply talked past him because they have failed to understand his fundamental point-that donor conception is a violation of human dignity and as such is wrong even if it does not harm individuals. I challenge Velleman on his own terms by endorsing his metaphysical picture before showing that donor conception is not necessarily a violation of human dignity. I show this by arguing that gamete donation is held to a double standard of self-knowledge. I develop an account of the self that recognizes that certain kinds of challenges to one's flourishing can contribute to an individual's strength and self-knowledge. I defend my view against objections that genetic knowledge is categorically different from other ways of knowing oneself and I show that donor conception can respect human dignity as long as it meets certain conditions.

Is a Video Worth a Thousand Words?

Bodily imagery elicits strong affective responses and is highly salient, potentially altering viewers' decision making. When clinicians engage surrogates in video calls showing the patient's body, several competing ethical issues must be considered. On the one hand, surrogates may require visual information to make informed decisions, and video technology closes crucial information gaps. On the other, video technology puts an increased amount of control in the hands of clinicians over how the patient's condition is perceived. This article explores some situations that can result in manipulation due to the affective impact of bodily images and the potential for selectivity and framing. Focusing on goals of care, the paper outlines the foremost ethical considerations for clinicians and provides recommendations for clinicians on how to reduce possible manipulation when making these video calls.

Family secrets: Experiences and outcomes of participating in direct-to-consumer genetic relative-finder services.

In recent decades, genetic genealogy has become popular as a result of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing. Some DTC genetic testing companies offer genetic relative-finder (GRF) services that compare the DNA of consenting participants to identify genetic relatives among them and provide each participant a list of their relative matches. We surveyed a convenience sample of GRF service participants to understand the prevalence of discoveries and associated experiences. Almost half (46%) of the 23,196 respondents had participated in GRF services only for non-specific reasons that included interest in building family trees and general curiosity. However, most (82%) also learned the identity of at least one genetic relative. Separately, most respondents (61%) reported learning something new about themselves or their relatives, including potentially disruptive information such as that a person they believed to be their biological parent is in fact not or that they have a sibling they had not known about. Respondents generally reported that discovering this new information had a neutral or positive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF services. Yet some reported making life changes as a result of their discoveries. Compared to respondents making other types of discoveries, those who learned that they were donor conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting net-negative consequences for themselves. Our findings indicate that discoveries from GRF services may be common and that the consequences for individuals, while generally positive, can be far-reaching and complex.

COVID-19 vaccination status should not be used in triage tie-breaking.

This article discusses the triage response to the COVID-19 delta variant surge of 2021. One issue that distinguishes the delta wave from earlier surges is that by the time it became the predominant strain in the USA in July 2021, safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 had been available for all US adults for several months. We consider whether healthcare professionals and triage committees would have been justified in prioritising patients with COVID-19 who are vaccinated above those who are unvaccinated in first-order or second-order triage. Given that lack of evidence for a correlation between short-term survival and vaccination, we argue that using vaccination status during first-order triage would be inconsistent with accepted triage standards. We then turn to notions of procedural fairness, equity and desert to argue that that there is also a lack of justification for using vaccination status in second-order triage. In planning for future surges, we recommend that medical institutions base their triage decisions on principles meant to save the most lives, minimise inequity and protect the public's trust, which for the time being would not be served by the inclusion of vaccination status.

Caring for Unvaccinated Patients in the ICU: Beyond Frustration, Toward Beneficial Relationships.

Critical care professionals in the United States are experiencing distress and frustration during the recent delta-wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This wave feels different because most, although not all, patients suffering with the sequelae from coronavirus disease 2019 who enter ICUs are unvaccinated. Since vaccines in the United States are safe, effective, and widely available for people 12 and older, severe cases of coronavirus disease 2019 are now considered preventable. However, even when a disease is preventable, critical care professionals still have remaining role-based, ethical obligations to their patients. Developing additional mechanisms for reflection and resilience, in spite of accumulated frustrations from otherwise preventable mortality, may help the professional and those they care for. In this essay, we propose a number of questions that recognize the existential frustrations critical care professionals experience, while also uncovering the ethical obligations that remain. Rather than becoming comfortable with silence or frustration, these reflections intend to bridge the gap between feeling frustrated and building relationships that benefit both the patient and the critical care professional during this pandemic.