Exploration of clinical ethics consultation in Uganda: a case study of Uganda Cancer Institute.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESSs) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence about mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda. METHODS: This phenomenological qualitative study utilized in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook. RESULTS: The study revealed there was no formal committee or mechanism dedicated to resolving ethical dilemmas at the UCI. Instead, ethical dilemmas were addressed in six forums: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings (MMMs), core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas. CONCLUSION: The fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics.

Conscience, Disobedience, and Standard of Care.

In the article "Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience," Abram L. Brummett, Tanner Hafen, and Mark C. Navin reject what they call the "referral asymmetry" in U.S. conscientious objection law in medicine, which recognizes rights of conscientiously objecting physicians to withhold referrals for medical interventions but does not (yet) recognize rights of physicians to make referrals for medical interventions to which they are morally committed but to which their health care institutions are morally opposed. This commentary concentrates on a second asymmetry, namely, the relationship of a health care provider's referral or nonreferral to the medical standard of care. The commentary argues that this second asymmetry seems to require action more appropriately recognized as civil disobedience than conscientious provision of referral.

In Defense of Normothermic Regional Perfusion.

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a relatively new approach to procuring organs for transplantation. After circulatory death is declared, perfusion is restored to either the thoracoabdominal organs (in TA-NRP) or abdominal organs alone (in A-NRP) using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Simultaneously, surgeons clamp the cerebral arteries, causing a fatal brain injury. Critics claim that clamping the arteries is the proximate cause of death in violation of the dead donor rule and that the procedure is therefore unethical. We disagree. This account does not consider the myriad other factors that contribute to the death of the donor, including the presence of a fatal medical condition, the decision to withdraw life support, and the physician's actions in withdrawing life support and administering medication that may hasten death. Instead, we claim that physicians play a causative role in many of the events that lead to a patient's death and that these actions are often ethically and legally justified. We advance an "all things considered" view according to which TA-NRP may be considered ethically acceptable insofar as it avoids suffering and respects the wishes of the patient to improve the lives of others through organ donation. We conclude with a series of critical questions related to the practice of NRP and call for the development of national consensus on this issue in the United States.

A Risk Is Not a Harm: Abortion Exceptions in State Laws.

This letter responds to the article "Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post-Dobbs Landscape," by Anne Drapkin Lyerly, Ruth R. Faden, and Michelle M. Mello, in the May-June 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report.

Conscience, Caricatures, and Catholic Identities.

Catholic health care is often viewed as antithetical to secular conceptions of autonomy. This view can engender calls to protect "choice" in Catholic facilities. However, this view is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs). This commentary, which responds to "Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience," by Abram Brummett et al., seeks to demonstrate the nuance of the ERDs as well as to address some of the challenges various Catholic identities have when interpreting and living out the ERDs so that all patients receive high-quality, compassionate care. By highlighting the Church's desire to protect all people at every stage, I hope to dispel the caricatures that often result from misunderstandings by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Principled Conscientious Provision: Referral Symmetry and Its Implications for Protecting Secular Conscience.

"Conscientious provision" refers to situations in which clinicians wish to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments prohibited within their (usually Catholic) health care institutions. It mirrors "conscientious objection," which refers to situations in which clinicians refuse to provide legal and professionally accepted treatments offered within their (usually secular) health care institutions. Conscientious provision is not protected by law, but conscientious objection is. In practice, this asymmetry privileges conservative religious or moral values (usually associated with objection) over secular moral values (usually associated with provision). In this article, we first argue for a legal right to one kind of conscientious provision: referral for procedures prohibited at Catholic hospitals. We then argue that a premise in that argument-the principle of comparably trivial institutional burdens-justifies legal protections for some additional forms of conscientious provision that include, for example, writing prescriptions for contraception or medical abortions. However, this principle cannot justify legal protections for other forms of conscientious provision, for instance, the right to perform surgical abortions or gender-affirming hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals.

Clinical ethics consultation services: public-facing information on NCI-designated cancer center websites.

Clinical ethics consultation services (CECS) can be particularly complex in oncology, and widespread misconceptions exist about their nature. As a result, visibility and accessibility of information regarding CECS is critical. We investigated the availability and content of information regarding CECS on websites of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and cancer centers (CCs). Each website was reviewed for information on CECS and reviewed for benchmarks partially derived from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities recommendations for CECS. Our analysis revealed that of 70 NCI-designated center websites, 38 had information on CECS, and 17 were found directly on these sites. When CECS information was available, most websites provided a mission statement (71%) and an explanation of what constitutes an ethics consult (74%). Few provided a description of the consult process (45%) or service membership (39%). Our findings reveal a significant gap in CECS visibility on the websites of NCI-designated CCs.

Managing the Labyrinth of Complex Ethical Issues in Anesthesia Practice: The Anesthesiologist's Ariadne's Thread.

Facing ethical dilemmas is challenging and sometimes becomes a real burden for anesthesiologists, particularly because they rarely have previous or long-standing patient relationships that help inform clinical decision-making. Although there is no ideal algorithm that can fit all clinical situations, some basic moral and ethical principles, which should be part of every clinician's armamentarium, can guide the decision-making process. Dealing with conflicting views among providers and/or patients can be distressing but can lead to meaningful professional and personal growth for each clinician.

Balancing ethical norms and duties for the introduction of new medicines through conditional marketing authorization: a research agenda.

The European Medicines Agency's conditional marketing authorization (CMA) aims to expedite patient access to medicines for unmet medical needs by shifting a part of the drug development process post-authorization. We highlight ethical issues surrounding CMA, comprising (i) the complexity of defining unmet medical need; (ii) poor understanding of CMA and its impact on informed consent; (iii) hope versus unrealistic optimism; (iv) implications of prolonged post-authorization studies and potential patient harm; (v) rights and duties of patients surrounding participation in post-authorization studies; (vi) access to previously authorized CMA medicines; and (vii) the "benefit slippage" phenomenon, defined as the gradual shift of strict criteria to less strict criteria. We propose a comprehensive research agenda to address these ethical issues, and stress the need for multi-stakeholder engagement to ensure patient-centered use of CMA.

Factors associated with Saudi physicians' utilization of clinical ethics consultation services.

Clinical Ethics Consultation (CEC) aims to resolve ethical dilemmas at the bedside. Through a structured process, CEC allows practitioners and patients to consult ethicists at times of moral conflict or uncertainty. Over the past few decades, CEC has become an invaluable part of healthcare practice. In Saudi Arabia, however, CEC services remain inexplicably underutilized. This study attempts to understand the factors associated with Saudi physicians' utilization of CEC to better meet the needs of practitioners and patients. Results indicate that although physicians routinely experience moral dilemmas, they seldom request a CEC. This is not due to unfamiliarity, lack of accessibility, or suspicion of ethical expertise. Rather, reluctance is likely due to an ingrained medical cultural stronghold that pressures practitioners to act heroically, and to resolve ethical dilemmas independently. Recommendations to improve the utilization of CEC services include wider availability, active collaborations with clinical practitioners, routine quality improvements, and managerial and national support.

The ethics of overriding patient refusals during 5150s and other involuntary psychiatric holds.

Involuntary psychiatric holds, such as the 5150 hold in California, allow for an individual to be taken into custody for evaluation and treatment for up to 72 h when they present a risk of danger to themselves. 5150s and other coerced holds present a bioethical tension as patient autonomy is overridden to provide psychiatric care. I discuss two arguments that aim to provide ethical justifications for overriding patient autonomy during 5150 holds: the "clinical benefit" and "lack of capacity" arguments. By demonstrating that these arguments do not always hold, I argue that overriding patient autonomy during 5150 holds is not always ethical and can be harmful. Lastly, I make recommendations for the 5150 and similar involuntary psychiatric holds to minimize harmful breaches of patient dignity: creating consistent field guidelines for assessing prehospital capacity, educating prehospital providers about the potential harms of 5150s, and utilizing existing support structures within the social context of the patient when they have capacity to refuse further prehospital care.

Everyday Clinical Ethics: Essential Skills and Educational Case Scenarios.

Bioethics conjures images of dramatic healthcare challenges, yet everyday clinical ethics issues unfold regularly. Without sufficient ethical awareness and a relevant working skillset, clinicians can feel ill-equipped to respond to the ethical dimensions of everyday care. Bioethicists were interviewed to identify the essential skills associated with everyday clinical ethics and to identify educational case scenarios to illustrate everyday clinical ethics. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of bioethicists. Bioethicists were asked: (1) What are the essential skills required for everyday clinical ethics? And (2) What are potential educational case scenarios to illustrate and teach everyday clinical ethics? Participant interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Twenty-five (25) bioethicists completed interviews (64% female; mean 14.76 years bioethics experience; 80% white). Five categories of general skills and three categories of ethics-specific skills essential for everyday clinical ethics were identified. General skills included: (1) Awareness of Core Values and Self-Reflective Capacity; (2) Perspective-Taking and Empathic Presence; (3) Communication and Relational Skills; (4) Cultural Humility and Respect; and (5) Organizational Understanding and Know-How. Ethics-specific skills included: (1) Ethical Awareness; (2) Ethical Knowledge and Literacy; and (3) Ethical Analysis and Interaction. Collectively, these skills comprise a Toolbox of Everyday Clinical Ethics Skills. Educational case scenarios were identified to promote everyday ethics. Bioethicists identified skills essential to everyday clinical ethics. Educational case scenarios were identified for the purpose of promoting proficiency in this domain. Future research could explore the impact of integrating educational case scenarios on clinicians' ethical competencies.

[The Basel model of principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation 2.0 : An introduction for psychiatry]. / Das Basler Modell der prinzipienorientierten klinischen Ethikkonsultation 2.0 : Eine Einführung für die Psychiatrie.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of clinical ethics counselling in medicine in terms of satisfaction of the participants, support of ethical decision-making, perceived impact on clinical care, moral competence and quality of communication is now empirically well validated. In psychiatry, more and more institutions have structures for clinical ethics consultation as well; however, there is still a lack of evaluative accompanying research on the benefits and differential indications of the various forms and models of clinical ethics counselling in psychiatry. AIM OF THE WORK: The article presents the principles and the step by step application of the principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation according to the Basel model 2.0. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The article is based on material and procedures developed at the Clinical Ethics Unit of the University Hospital Basel and the University Psychiatric Clinics Basel for the principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation according to the Basel model 2.0. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Principle-oriented clinical ethics consultation according to the Basel model 2.0 is suitable for dealing with moral issues and conflicts in psychiatric practice and for their ethical reflection; however, further evaluative accompanying research is needed on the benefits and differential indications of this and other models of clinical ethics support in psychiatry.

Toward a new clinical pragmatism: method in clinical ethics consultation.

In this paper, I leverage the pragmatist tradition in philosophy, the collective wisdom of scholarship in clinical ethics consultation, and earlier attempts to apply pragmatism in clinical ethics to develop a new vision of clinical ethics practice called New Clinical Pragmatism. It argues that clinical ethics methodology, from the New Clinical Pragmatist's perspective, amounts to the recommendation that consultants should customize a methodological approach, drawing on the various available methods, depending on the demands of the specific case, and should avoid attempts to identify a 'true' methodology but to the incoherence and inevitable failure of those attempts. I argue that pragmatism's emphasis on practical wisdom and experimentation allow the New Clinical Pragmatist to do this while avoiding irrationality in choosing methods. I discuss how the New Clinical Pragmatist gives a unique, constructive perspective on key aspects of clinical ethics consultation such as the choice of common morality vs. internal morality of medicine approaches, process standards, bioethics mediation, and narrative ethics, and suggest how New Clinical Pragmatism's relaxed approach to choice of methodology encourages consultants to balance attention to the particulars of the case with knowledge of what the many insightful scholars of clinical ethics methodology have found useful in the past. I also argue that New Clinical Pragmatism is consistent with efforts to professionalize clinical ethics consultation.

The Structure of Clinical Ethical Decision-Making: A Hospital System Needs Assessment.

Bioethical dilemmas can emerge in research and clinical settings, from end-of-life decision-making to experimental therapies. The COVID-19 pandemic raised serious ethical challenges for healthcare organizations, highlighting the need to conduct needs assessments of the bioethics infrastructures of healthcare organizations. Clinical ethics committees (CECs) also create equitable policies, train staff on ethics issues, and play a consultative role in resolving the difficulty of complex individual cases. The main objective of this project was to conduct a needs assessment of the bioethics infrastructure within a comprehensive hospital system. A cross-sectional anonymous online survey, including quantitative and qualitative formatted questions. The survey was sent to five key leaders from the organization's hospitals. Survey questions focused on the composition, structure, function, and effectiveness of their facilities' bioethics infrastructure and ethics-related training and resources. Positive findings included that most facilities have active CECs with multidisciplinary membership; CECs address critical issues and encourage team members to express clinical ethics concerns. Areas of concern included uncertainty about how CECs function and the process for resolving clinical ethics dilemmas. Most reported no formal orientation process for CEC members, and many said there was no ongoing ethics education process. The authors conclude that if CECs are a critical institutional resource where the practice of medicine and mission intersect, having well-functioning ethics committees with trained and oriented members demonstrates an essential commitment to the mission. The survey revealed that more needs to be done to bolster the bioethics infrastructure of this institution.

Is Suffering a Useless Concept?

"Suffering" is a central concept within bioethics and often a crucial consideration in medical decision making. As used in practice, however, the concept risks being uninformative, ambiguous, or even misleading. In this paper, we consider a series of cases in which "suffering" is invoked and analyze them in light of prominent theories of suffering. We then outline ethical hazards that arise as a result of imprecise usage of the concept and offer practical recommendations for avoiding them. Appeals to suffering are often getting at something ethically important. But this is where the work of ethics begins, not where it ends.

Minors Lack the Autonomy to Consent to Gender-Affirming Care: Best Interests Must Be Primary.

What ethically justifies the provision of invasive and irreversible treatments to minors? In this commentary, I examine this question in response to Moti Gorin's article "What Is the Aim of Pediatric 'Gender-Affirming' Care?," which critiques autonomy-based arguments for justification of gender-affirming care in minors. Minors generally lack sufficient autonomy to make significant medical decisions or major life decisions. For this reason, parents are generally their decision-makers, working with medical professionals to choose treatments that serve the best interests of the minor. Medical care in minors is justified by beneficence, not autonomy, and this should be no different for gender-affirming care. This severely undermines autonomy-based arguments for provision of gender-affirming care to minors. Given the lack of conclusive evidence for benefit, the nature of the treatment, and the fact that gender dysphoria in minors resolves spontaneously in most cases, there is presently insufficient justification for provision of such care to minors.

Values and Evidence in Gender-Affirming Care.

This commentary responds to the article "What Is the Aim of Pediatric 'Gender-Affirming' Care?," by Moti Gorin, in the same issue of the journal. Gender-affirming care is often treated as exceptional and subject to heightened scrutiny. This exceptionalization results in its being held to stricter evidentiary standards than other forms of medical interventions are. But values and value judgments are inextricable from the practice of evidence-based medicine. For gender-affirming care, values shape what counts as "strong" evidence, whether the legitimacy of transgender identity is assumed versus treated as something to be investigated, how to characterize the testimonial accounts of trans and gender-nonconforming patients, and more. We argue that these kinds of questions are part of the practice of medicine, not exceptional to transgender people and gender-affirming care. However, litigation of evidence for gender-affirming care in state and national policy underscores the moral urgency of thinking carefully about what values ought to guide evidence.

Examining ethical issues that arise in providing ED/hospital care for patients experiencing elder mistreatment and approaches to address them.

Clinicians in the emergency department and hospital who treat patients experiencing elder mistreatment (EM) can expect to encounter challenging ethical dilemmas. Collaboration with ethics and EM consultation services offers teams an important opportunity to improve patient-centered outcomes and address value-based concerns when treating these patients. This article describes the role of a hospital clinical ethics consultation service and best practices for collaboration between ethics and EM consultation services. Illuminated via four case studies, the article presents several core ethical frameworks, including allowing patients the dignity of risk, considerations around a harm reduced discharge, involving abusers in surrogate decision making, and providers' experience of moral distress when dealing with patients experiencing EM. Increasing collaboration with ethics and elder mistreatment services can help teams more effectively respond to EM.

Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients.

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.