Challenges Addressing Lung Cancer Screening for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient's health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP's advice. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

On subjective measures of decision quality.

In times of person-centered care, it is all the more important to support patients in making good decisions about their care. One way to offer such support to patients is by way of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs). Ranging from patient brochures to web-based tools, PDAs explicitly state the decisions patients face, inform them about their medical options, help them to clarify and discuss their values, and ultimately make a decision. However, lingering discussions surround effectiveness research on PDAs. In this article, I focus on two subjective measures of decision quality that are widely used as outcome measures in effectiveness research on PDAs (i.e., the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and measures of regret). Although these measurement instruments have attracted critical attention in the scientific literature, bioethicists have hardly engaged with them. Therefore, I set myself to analyze the relationship between (the different subscales of) the DCS and measures of regret, on the one hand, and ethical principles such as beneficence and autonomy, on the other hand. In light of that analysis, I will clarify some discussions regarding the use of these measures of decision quality in effectiveness research on PDAs. This should help us to align the way we evaluate PDAs with ethical principles and avoid that our attempts to support patients in making good decisions about their care that is so central to person-centered care point in unethical directions.

"It is very hard to just accept this" - a qualitative study of palliative care teams' ethical reasoning when patients do not want information.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore how palliative care staff reason about the autonomy challenge that arises when a patient who has first said he wants full information appears to change his mind and rejects being informed. METHODS: The study had a qualitative and exploratory design. Participants (physicians, registred nurses, social workers, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) were recruited from palliative care teams in southern Sweden. Six separate focus group interviews with a total number of 33 participants were conducted. The teams were asked to discuss a fictional case of a man who first wants, then rejects, information about his situation. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke was undertaken to analyse data. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three themes: Patients have a right to reject information, Questioning whether this patient WANTS to reject information and There are other values at stake, too. Although participants endorsed a right to reject information, they were unsure whether this right was relevant in this situation, and furthermore felt that it should be balanced against counteracting factors. The effect of such balancing was that participants would aim to find a way to present relevant information to the patient, but in a probing and flexible way. CONCLUSIONS: In their work with dying patients, palliative care staff meet many autonomy challenges. When faced with a choice to withhold information as per a patient's wishes, or to provide information with the patient's best interest in mind, staff find it hard to balance competing values. Staff also find it hard to balance their own interests against a purely professional stance. The overall strategy seems to be to look for caring ways to impart the information.

Working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, patients in Thailand have easier access to public health services, resulting in an increased number of patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, the Royal College of Anesthesiologists produces nurse anesthetists to reduce the shortage of anesthesiologists who can perform general anesthesia under the physician's supervision. As a result, nurse anesthetists must have the consciousness to work on the basis of ethics and professional standards. Nurse anesthetists have work experience that aims to benefit patients and make them as safe as possible. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients. METHODS: This study employed qualitative research using in-depth interviews. The sample consisted of 33 nurse anesthetists who volunteered to participate in the research project with more than ten years of work experience and worked in tertiary care hospitals. The researcher used a qualitative content analysis method.Ethical considerations: Study after approval and certification of the research project from the Human Ethics Committee of Mahidol University, and Naval Medical Department. RESULTS: The working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients involves communicating and listening with compassion, being considerate, knowledgeable, and standard operations, team communication, and awareness of patient safety, as a productive and non-harmful work experience. DISCUSSION: Nurse anesthetists working in situations of beneficial approaches to patient care need experience in appropriate communication, professional knowledge and skills to thoroughly assess patients, pass critical information to the team, and be aware of potential risks. Make patients receive care in a more suitable and safe way. CONCLUSION: Working experience of nurse anesthetists with beneficence for patients exists with communication and listening with compassion, being considerate, communicating and forwarding the patient's necessary information to the team to be aware of abnormalities, knowledgeable and standard operations, and awareness of patient safety in every phase of the performance consistently.

Refusals and Requests: In Defense of Consistency.

Physicians place significant weight on the distinction between acts and omissions. Most believe that autonomous refusals for procedures, such as blood transfusions and resuscitation, ought to be respected, but they feel no similar obligation to accede to requests for treatment that will, in the physician's opinion, harm the patient (e.g., assisted death). Thus, there is an asymmetry. In this paper, we challenge the strength of this distinction by arguing that the ordering of values should be the same in both cases. The reason for respecting refusals is that, in such cases, autonomy outweighs well-being. We argue that the same should be true in request cases, which means that requests should not be denied only due to the treatment being too harmful in the physician's opinion. Our strategy is to consider and reject a number of arguments for the asymmetrical view, including an appeal to the doing-allowing distinction and positive and negative rights. The duty to respect refusals is still greater than the duty to grant requests on our view, but, by arguing that the ordering of values is the same in both cases, we show that there is less of a distinction in healthcare between requests and refusals than many currently believe.

Advance directives need full legal status in persons with dementia.

Currently, in the United States, there is no legal obligation for medical professionals or civil courts to uphold patients' Advance Directives (ADs) regarding end-of-life care. The applicability and standing of ADs prepared by Alzheimer's patients is a persistent issue in bioethics. Those who argue against giving ADs full status take two main approaches: (1) appealing to beneficence on behalf of the Alzheimer's patient and (2) claiming that there is no longer any personal equivalence between the AD's creator and the subject of the AD. In this paper, I present profound arguments against both approaches. Firstly, I argue that the principle of beneficence cannot apply in the case of Alzheimer's patients, and, secondly, that the moral and legal authority of the AD need not depend on strict equivalence of personal identity. I conclude by arguing that valid ADs protect the dignity and autonomy of Alzheimer's patients and that, therefore, there are moral obligations to uphold ADs which should be reflected in public policy and legislation.

From a critique of the principle of autonomy to an ethic of heteronomy.

Etymologically, autonomy is the ability to give oneself rules and follow them. It is an important principle of medical ethics, which can sometimes raise some tensions in the care relationship. We propose a new definition of ethics, the ethics of heteronomy: a self-normative, discursive and responsible autonomy. Autonomy cannot be considered without the responsibility each person must have towards others. In the care relationship, autonomy would be more the ability of each person to reach out to others than the ability to decide alone. The care relationship must be seen as an accompaniment of equals where each person allows the other to be rephrased. Autonomy would then no longer be absolute but relative to each situation. Being autonomous would become an ability for adaptation of the patient-doctor pair. The accompaniment allows the birth of a relationship of trust, giving the patient and the doctor the ability to touch and let themselves be touched, thus making each one progress in this reciprocal dialectic. The care relationship becomes the possibility of considering autonomy as a collective and not as an individual notion only. Paradoxically, by promoting the autonomy of the patient-doctor pair, they both develop their own autonomy.

[Ethical and legal aspects of violence against women]. / Aspectos éticos y legales de la violencia sobre la mujer.

Caring for female victims of violence presents health professionals with situations that require careful consideration due to the conflicts raised between the fundamental principles of bioethics. During this process, intermediate courses of action should be adopted in which none of the affected principles is totally compromised, yet always take into account due compliance with legal and deontological regulations. Within these conflicts, the possible impact on the autonomy of the victim must be taken into consideration, conditioned by the relationship of dominance with respect to their aggressor, a fundamental characteristic of gender violence. However, the fact that there is a legal obligation to issue an injury report or to communicate a well-founded suspicion of abuse is not enough to ignore the fact that the person, in this case the victim, must be a participant in the process. As such, the doctor has the obligation to inform his or her patient about this legal requirement, dedicating all the time and attention necessary to ensure that the victim understands the purpose and benefits of complying with this. In any case, and beyond the appropriate adaptation of the professional's conduct to current precepts, the ethical principle of care must be adhered to, by which the best thing the professional can do is to provide the victim with the means to avoid the repetition of new attacks, implementing prevention measures that have their origin in the accurate diagnosis of the situation of violence and in the communication of this to the authorities.

Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Surgery.

Pediatric surgeons need to learn to give as much importance to the ethical approach as they have been giving to the systemic methodology in their clinical approach all along. The law of the land and the governmental rules also need to be kept in mind before deciding the final solution. They need to always put medical problems in the background of ethical context, reach a few solutions keeping in mind the available resources, and apply the best solution in the interest of their pediatric patients.

Addressing challenges related to the professional practice of abortion post-Roe.

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one's beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions.

Beneficence cannot justify voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

The patient's autonomy and well-being are sometimes seen as central to the ethical justification of voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). While respecting the patient's wish to die plausibly promotes the patient's autonomy, it is less obvious how alleviating the patient's suffering through death benefits the patient. Death eliminates the subject, so how can we intelligibly maintain that the patient's well-being is promoted when she/he no longer exists? This article interrogates two typical answers given by philosophers: (a) that death confers a well-being benefit in the sense that it actualises a comparatively better life course for the patient (ie, a shorter life with less net suffering), and (b) that death is beneficial because non-existence which entails no suffering is superior to an existence filled with suffering. A close examination of the two senses in which the patient might incur a well-being benefit reveals problems that preclude physicians delivering VE/PAS in the name of beneficence.

Procreative Justice and genetic selection for skin colour.

Should nonprejudiced reproducers genetically select embryos for light skin under background conditions of racism and colourism, given that darker skin will be disadvantageous for their child? Many intuit that there are strong moral reasons not to select light skin in these contexts. I argue that existing procreative principles cannot adequately account for this judgement. Instead, I argue that a more compelling rationale for this intuition is that such selection completes an instance of race or colour injustice. Given this, I propose a new, complementary principle-Procreative Justice-which holds that reproducers have strong pro tanto moral reasons to avoid completing race and colour injustices via their selection choices. While these reasons may be overridden by competing considerations, they nonetheless continue to exert normative force.

Ethical considerations of the vaccine development process and vaccination: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Various vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide to control and cope with COVID-19 disease. To ensure vaccines benefit the global community, the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy should be examined and adhered to in the process of development, distribution, and implementation. This study, therefore, aimed to examine ethical considerations of vaccine development and vaccination processes. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature was conducted based on the Arkesy and O'Malley protocol to identify eligible studies published until November 2021. We searched Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and SciELO databases. The search was conducted using combinations of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms and keywords for Ethics, COVID-19, and vaccines in abstract, keywords, and title fields to retrieve potentially relevant publications. We included any study that reported one of the four principles of medical ethics: autonomy, justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence in the COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution and implementation of vaccinations. Letters, notes, protocols, and brief communications were excluded. In addition, we searched gray literature to include relevant studies (ProQuest database, conferences, and reports). Data were analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In total, 43 studies were included. Ethical considerations concluded two themes: (1) production and (2) distribution and vaccination. The production process consisted of 16 codes and 4 main Categories, distribution and vaccination process consisted of 12 codes and 4 main Categories. Moreover, the ethical considerations of special groups were divided into four main groups: health care workers (HCWs) (five codes), children and adolescents (five codes), the elderly (one code), and ethnic and racial minorities (three codes). CONCLUSION: Due to the externalities of pandemics and the public and social benefits and harms of vaccination, it is not feasible to adhere to all four principles of medical ethics simultaneously and perfectly. This issue confronts individuals and policymakers with several moral dilemmas. It seems that decision-making based on the balance between social benefit and social harm is a better criterion in this regard, and the final decision should be made based on maximizing the public benefit and minimizing the public harm.

Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.

An Ethics Committee (EC) is an independent body composed of members with expertise in both scientific and nonscientific arenas which functions to ensure the protection of human rights and the well-being of research subjects based on six basic principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, confidentiality, and honesty. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Directory of Open Access Journals were searched for studies relevant to this topic. This review is focused on the types of research articles that need EC approval, the submission process, and exemptions. It further highlights the constitution of ECs, their duties, the review process, and the assessment of the risk-benefit of the proposed research including privacy issues. It's pertinent for academicians and researchers to abide by the rules and regulations put forth by ECs for upholding of human rights and protecting research subjects primarily, as well as avoiding other issues like retraction of publications. Despite various issues of cost, backlogs, lack of expertise, lesser representation of laypersons, need for multiple approvals for multisite projects, conflicts of interest, and monitoring of ongoing research for the continued safety of participants, the ECs form the central force in regulating research and participant safety. Data safety and monitoring boards complement the ECs for carrying out continuous monitoring for better protection of research subjects. The establishment of ECs has ensured safe study designs, the safety of human subjects along with the protection of researchers from before the initiation until the completion of a study.

Clarification of ethical principle of the beneficence in nursing care: an integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Ethics-based nursing practice can transform health care practices. As the biggest human capital in the health care system, nurses are obliged to follow ethical principles in this field. One of these ethical principles; is beneficence, which is considered the core of nursing care. This study aimed to investigate clarification of the principle of beneficence in nursing care and its related challenges. METHODS: This integrative review was conducted using the Whittemore & Knafl method in 5 stages, including problem identification, searching the literature, evaluating primary sources, analyzing data, and presenting the results. Databases like SID, Irandoc, Magiran, Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus were searched using the keywords; "beneficence", "ethic", "nursing" and "care" in English and Persian in the time range of 2010 to 10 February, 2023. After applying inclusion criteria and assessing the articles using Bowling's Quality Assessment Tool, finally, 16 papers were included from 984. RESULTS: After reviewing and evaluating the qualified articles, the findings were classified into four main categories: (1) nature, (2) applicability, (3) Relevant and influential factors, and (4) challenges related to the ethical principle of beneficence in nursing care. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this review it seems that paying attention to clarification the principle of beneficence in nursing care can provide positive outcomes for patients to benefit from this principle and finally, it leads to increasing the well-being and health of patients, reducing their mortality rate, increasing satisfaction and maintaining the respect and human dignity of patients.

The value of ethical principles to reflect on emerging issues in epilepsy care and research.

In the age of patient participation, ethics are more important than ever to help guide clinicians in situations of uncertainty. Principles of Biomedical Ethics by James F. Childress and Thomas L. Beauchamp remains the most important reference in medical ethics. In their work, they conceptualize four principles designed to help guide clinicians in decision making, notably beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. While using ethical principles dates back to at least Hippocrates, the introduction by Beauchamp and Childress of the principles of autonomy and justice have helped to deal with new challenges. This contribution will discuss how the principles can help elucidate issues of patient participation in epilepsy care and research using two case studies. METHODS: In this paper, we will discuss the equilibrium to be found between two principles (beneficence and autonomy) in the context of emerging debates in epilepsy care and research. The methods section details the specificities of each principle and their relevance to epilepsy care and research. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Using two case studies, we will explore the potential and limits of patient participation and how the ethical principles may help to provide nuance and reflection in this emerging debate. First of all, we will explore a clinical case which involves a conflictual situation with the patient and family about psychogenic nonepileptic seizures. We will then discuss an emerging issue in epilepsy research, namely the integration of persons with severe refractory epilepsy as patient research partners.

The new Code of Ethics of the World Psychiatric Association: A fresh look at the ethical issues of the psychiatric profession.

This article develops the WPA's new Code of Ethics that was developed in 2020. It succeeds the Declaration of Hawaii of 1977 and the Declaration of Madrid of 1996. The Code is divided into four sections that cover the practice of psychiatry in clinical practice, education, research and publication as well as public mental health. We will discuss the new ethical issues that this Code raises in parallel with the development of psychiatry and psychiatrists' role in society in recent years.

Testing the validity of the brief beneficence satisfaction scale in Turkish context.

The aim of the present study was to adapt the Brief Beneficence Satisfaction Scale (BBSS) (Martela & Ryan, 2015) into Turkish context and to test its psychometric properties. The study included a community sample of 322 (61% women, 30% men and 9% unspecified). Confirmatory factor analysis verified a four-item single factor model. The BBSS-TR showed positive correlations with altruism and subjective happiness, indicating similar correlation coefficients as in the original study. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for the BBSS-TR was .85. Results concluded that the BBSS-TR is a valid and reliable measure to be used in future research. The importance of beneficence satisfaction as a new psychological concept has been discussed.

Effects of perspective switching and utilitarian thinking on moral judgments in a sacrificial dilemma among healthcare and non-healthcare students.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals have often faced moral challenges, which required them to choose between endorsing self- or other-sacrifice for the greater good. Drawing on the altruistic rationalization hypothesis and trait-activation theory, this study investigates (a) whether healthcare students' endorsement of utilitarian solutions to sacrificial moral dilemmas varies when they are confronted with the minority group, majority group, or third-person perspective on the given dilemma and (b) whether individual differences in utilitarian thinking, as measured by the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale (both instrumental harm and impartial beneficence), predict endorsement of utilitarian solutions to moral dilemmas. The study population was divided into a group of healthcare students and a group of non-healthcare students. It was found that the members of both groups expressed a stronger pro-utilitarian position when making moral dilemma judgments from a majority perspective than from the two other perspectives. However, a difference was observed with healthcare students being more reluctant to endorse the utilitarian action than their non-healthcare counterparts in the self-in-majority context. The instrumental harm component was a significant predictor of utilitarian judgments in the healthcare group, but impartial beneficence significantly predicted utilitarian judgments in the non-healthcare group in the self-in-majority context. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04380-z.

'If we don't have consent, we need to have beneficence': Requiring beneficence in nonconsensual neurocorrection.

Neurointerventions-interventions that cause direct physical, chemical or biological effects on the brain-are sometimes administered to criminal offenders for the purpose of reducing their recidivism risk and promoting their rehabilitation more generally. Ethical debate on this practice (henceforth called 'neurocorrection') has focused on the issue of consent, with some authors defending a consent requirement in neurocorrection and others rejecting this. In this paper, I align with the view that consent might not always be necessary for permissible neurocorrective use, but introduce a qualification I argue ought to inform our ethical and legal analysis of neurocorrection if we are to administer neurocorrectives nonconsensually. I maintain our use of nonconsensual neurocorrection should be constrained by a beneficence requirement-that it should be limited to neurocorrectives that can be expected to benefit those required to undergo them; and my argument is that a beneficence requirement is necessary in order to safeguard against offender abuse. I highlight how we afford a heightened protective role to beneficence in other instances of biomedical intervention where consent is absent or in doubt; and I argue a beneficence requirement is also necessary in the correctional context because alternative candidate protections would provide insufficiently strong safeguards on their own. I then consider whether requiring beneficence in nonconsensual neurocorrection would (a) be incompatible with penal theory, (b) be objectionably paternalistic, or (c) foreclose many fruitful avenues of crime control. I argue in each case that it would not.