Two variants of 'constrained participation' in the care of vulnerable adults: A proof-of-concept study.

There has been a radical turn towards ideals of patient autonomy and person-centred care, and away from historically entrenched forms of medical paternalism, in the last 50 years of nursing practice. However, along the way, some shades of grey between the areas of ideal patient participation and of outright patient non-participation have been missed. The current article constitutes an exploratory proof-of-concept study of the real-world traction of a distinction-straddling concept of 'constrained participation' and its two sub-concepts of 'fought-for participation' and 'forced-to participation'. In order to concretise these additions to the conceptual terrain of person-centred participation and its anti-theses, we apply them to themes in the care of vulnerable older adults. In the final section, we close by eliciting some characterological, educational and clinical implications of adding these new tools also to the conceptual repertoire of nursing practice and education.

Mifepristone Paternalism at the FDA.

This article explores the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in drug approval and restrictions to mifepristone access in the context of historical regulation and current litigation.

[Ethical stakes of information in radiation oncology: Thinking the risk and building the therapeutic alliance]. / Enjeux éthiques de l'information en oncologie radiothérapie : penser le risque et construire l'alliance thérapeutique.

Informing patients before receiving radiation therapy is a fundamental ethical imperative. As a condition of the possibility of autonomy, information allows people to make health decisions concerning themselves, which is required by French law. This information includes in particular the potential risks due to radiation therapy. It is therefore necessary to think about what risk is, and how to define and assess it, in order to finally communicate it. The practice of informing people involves many ethical issues relating to the very content of the information, the form in which it is transmitted or even the intention that leads the health professional to say (or not to say) the risk. The transmission of information also questions the way to build a relationship of trust with the patients and how to integrate their own representations about these treatments. Between the risks of paternalism or even defensive medicine, this practice is at the heart of our professional practice.

Between Autonomy and Paternalism: Attitudes of Nursing Personnel Towards Jehovah's Witnesses' Refusal of Blood Transfusion.

Objectives: The study describes the attitudes of Polish nursing personnel towards Jehovah's Witnesses' (JWs') refusal to receive blood and blood products. Methods: We developed an online survey assessing nurses' knowledge and attitudes towards JWs' refusal of blood transfusion in a life-threatening condition. It also examined nurses' attitudes towards ethical and legal issues associated with JWs' refusal of blood transfusions. These questions were explored using a sample of 202 Polish nurses. Results: Nurses' knowledge of JWs' stance towards blood transfusions is inadequate and they tended to be ill-disposed towards JWs' refusal of blood transfusions. Although most nurses respected adult JW patients' autonomy and supported their right to refuse blood, in the case of JW children they are guided by paternalism. Nurses' attitudes were affected by whether they had children, whether they declared themselves religious, their level of education and prior experience with patients who had refused a blood transfusion. Conclusion: Since most nurses felt unprepared to care for JW patients, this study reveals an urgent need to train nurses in transcultural nursing and increase nurses' cultural competencies, and that this should be incorporated into medical curricula .

A bit of medical paternalism? A qualitative study on power relations between women and healthcare providers when deciding on mode of birth in five public maternity wards of Argentina.

BACKGROUND: Whether women should be able to decide on mode of birth in healthcare settings has been a topic of debate in the last few decades. In the context of a marked increase in global caesarean section rates, a central dilemma is whether pregnant women should be able to request this procedure without medical indication. Since 2015, Law 25,929 of Humanised Birth is in place in Argentina. This study aims at understanding the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women, and labour companions regarding decision-making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, central concepts of power theory are used. METHODS: This study uses a qualitative design. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers were conducted in five maternity wards in different regions of Argentina. Participants were purposively selected using heterogeneity sampling and included obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to inductively develop themes and categories. RESULTS: Three themes were developed: (1) Healthcare providers reconceptualize decision-making processes of mode of birth to make women's voices matter; (2) Healthcare providers feel powerless against women's request to choose mode of birth; (3) Healthcare providers struggle to redirect women's decision regarding mode of birth. An overarching theme was built to explain the power relations between healthcare providers, women and labour companions: Healthcare providers' loss of beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the complexity of the healthcare provider-woman interaction in a context in which women are, in practice, allowed to choose mode of birth. Even though healthcare providers claim to welcome women being an active part of the decision-making processes, they feel powerless when women make autonomous decisions regarding mode of birth. They perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in the eyes of patients and consider fruitful communication on risks and benefits of each mode of birth to not always be possible. At the same time, providers perform an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place.

In the last few decades, there has been a debate on whether women should be able to choose if they haver a vaginal birth or a caesarean section. This debate has been framed by the fact that an increasing number of caesarean sections are being performed. Since 2015, Argentina has a Law of Humanised Birth. We conducted a study to understand the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women and labour companions in decision making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, we used central concepts of power theory. We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers in five maternity wards of Argentina. The interviewees were obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. We used thematic analysis to build themes from the data. We discovered that healthcare providers perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. Even though they claim to want women to make autonomous decisions, they feel frustrated when this happens. They also perceive it to be more difficult to communicate with patients regarding the risks and benefits of vaginal birth and caesarean section. At the same time, providers carry out an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place.

Risk-Sensitive Assessment of Decision-Making Capacity: A Comprehensive Defense.

Should the assessment of decision-making capacity (DMC) be risk sensitive, that is, should the threshold for DMC vary with risk? The debate over this question is now nearly five decades old. To many, the idea that DMC assessments should be risk sensitive is intuitive and commonsense. To others, the idea is paternalistic or incoherent, or both; they argue that the riskiness of a given decision should increase the epistemic scrutiny in the evaluation of DMC, not increase the threshold for DMC. We respond to the critics' main concerns by providing a comprehensive account of how risk-sensitive DMC is coherent, avoids paternalism, and best fulfills the epistemic goal of DMC evaluations.

Co-production as a resolution to authoritarian attitudes in healthcare.

Healthcare services should be provided according to contemporary ethical norms that require patients' active engagement in all the relevant processes. However, authoritarian attitudes and behaviors in healthcare, one of which is paternalism, put patients in a passive role. But, as Avedis Donabedian emphasizes, patients are co-producers of care, reformers of healthcare, informants, and definers and evaluators of quality. Overlooking these significant functions and merely focusing on physicians' benevolence due to their medical knowledge and skills in the production of healthcare services would leave the fate of patients in the hands of clinicians and impose physicians' hegemony on patients and their choices. Nevertheless, the concept of co-production is a practical and effective mechanism to redefine the language used in healthcare by recognizing patients as co-producers and equal partners. The application of co-production in healthcare would improve the therapeutic relationship, decrease ethical violations, and promote the patient's dignity.

[Understanding/acceptance of radiotherapy: An ethical dilemma resolved by an ethics of care]. / Compréhension/acceptation de la radiothérapie : un dilemme éthique résolu par une éthique de la considération et de la sollicitude.

PURPOSE: Ethical questions are poorly investigated specifically in radiation oncology. The objective of the study was to identify and understand the main ethical issue in radiation oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quantitative analysis was based on the answers to a questionnaire of 200 professionals from 22 radiation oncology departments. The questionnaire mainly aimed to characterize the main ethical issue. A monocentric qualitative analysis was based on semi-structured interviews focused on the main identified ethical issue, carried out with eight technologists, and 20 patients undergoing radiotherapy. RESULTS: The main ethical issue was the understanding and/or acceptance of the treatment by the patients (71 %), which frequently arises (more than once a month) (52 %), and corresponds to an ethical tension between the principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence (the good as viewed by the patient) as defined by Beauchamp and Childress. The technologists, wish the patient to be fully involved in his treatment, with the even possibility of refusing it. However, excluding paternalism and autonomic relentlessness, the technologists have the feeling of acting for the good of the patients by treating them with radiation, even if the patients are not always aware of it, because they are within a situation of vulnerability. If the hierarchy of principles is a compromise alternative, this problem is finally well resolved by the effective implementation of an ethic of consideration and solicitude, restoring the patient capabilities, i.e. the maximum development of his potentialities in his situation of vulnerability. Beyond the legal dimension, patient information is crucial and must consider the specific temporality of the patient. CONCLUSION: The main ethical issue in radiation oncology is the understanding and/or acceptance of the treatment involving the development of an ethic of consideration and solicitude.