What Should Clinicians and Patients Know About the Clinical Gaze, Disability, and Iatrogenic Harm When Making Decisions?

While clinicians, ethicists, and policymakers are increasingly aware that race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and class biases interfere with care provision, disability is not always considered as a confounding factor. This article explores the way embodiment affects personal and professional values. When patients who live with bodies others might not fully comprehend or embrace refuse-or challenge-clinical interventions, they offer real opportunities for clinicians to grasp the central role that embodied experience plays in how patients make health decisions and thereby avoid harming patients or undermining their relationships with patients.

An ethical analysis of clinical triage protocols and decision-making frameworks: what do the principles of justice, freedom, and a disability rights approach demand of us?

BACKGROUND: The expectation of pandemic-induced severe resource shortages has prompted authorities to draft and update frameworks to guide clinical decision-making and patient triage. While these documents differ in scope, they share a utilitarian focus on the maximization of benefit. This utilitarian view necessarily marginalizes certain groups, in particular individuals with increased medical needs. MAIN BODY: Here, we posit that engagement with the disability critique demands that we broaden our understandings of justice and fairness in clinical decision-making and patient triage. We propose the capabilities theory, which recognizes that justice requires a range of positive capabilities/freedoms conducive to the achievement of meaningful life goals, as a means to do so. Informed by a disability rights critique of the clinical response to the pandemic, we offer direction for the construction of future clinical triage protocols which will avoid ableist biases by incorporating a broader apprehension of what it means to be human. CONCLUSION: The clinical pandemic response, codified across triage protocols, should embrace a form of justice which incorporates a vision of pluralistic human capabilities and a valuing of positive freedoms.

The failure of formal rights and equality in the clinic: a critique of bioethics.

For communities which espouse egalitarian principles, the hierarchical nature of care-giving relationships poses an extraordinary challenge. Patients' accounts of their illnesses and of their medical care capture the latent tension which exists between notional, political equality and the need for dependency on care from others. I believe that the power imbalance in doctor-patient relationships has broad implications for liberal democracies. Professional and care-giving relationships almost always consist of an imbalance of knowledge and expertise which no template of egalitarian moralism can suppress. When we seek help or guidance from authority figures, we are at a disadvantage politically even though we may be equal citizens theoretically and legally. Hierarchic relationships persist within democracies. Moreover, they tend to exist within a realm of privacy which is only partially visible from the social realm. In the end, traditional notions of liberal autonomy and egalitarianism do not properly describe or monitor these interactions. Liberal rhetoric (i.e., terms such as equality, rights, consent, etc.) pervades much of bioethical literature and interventions but, this very language tends to mask the persistence of structural hierarchies in the clinic. The doctor-patient relationship forces democratic communities to confront the problem of continuing hierarchic power relations and challenges liberalism to revise its understanding of individual autonomies.