The Doctor-Patient Relationship, Partnership Theory, and the Patient as Partner: Finding a Balance Between Domination and Partnership.

It is perhaps most useful to approach the Doctor-Patient relationship (DPR) by admitting that it's complicated. We review some of the strategies that have been employed to mitigate this complexity, zeroing in on one that promises to capture the main features of the DPR without eliminating some of its more important, existential components; pieces of the puzzle that must be retained if we are to avoid oversimplification and the errors that can arise by ignoring important foundational properties. We believe that a useful way to look at the DPR and to capture essential features that must be balanced in the process is provided by Partnership Theory and its definition in terms of the so-called domination and partnership systems. We apply this theory to the DPR and investigate the implications of this application to health care. We see that in the absence of mitigating circumstances, adoption of the patient-as-partner model serves healthcare well and is flexible enough to accommodate circumstances that dictate modifications.

Principlism, Uncodifiability, and the Problem of Specification.

In this paper I critically examine the implications of the uncodifiability thesis for principlism as a pluralistic and non-absolute generalist ethical theory. In this regard, I begin with a brief overview of W.D. Ross's ethical theory and his focus on general but defeasible prima facie principles before turning to 2) the revival of principlism in contemporary bioethics through the influential work of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress; 3) the widespread adoption of specification as a response to the indeterminacy of abstract general principles and the limitations of balancing and deductive approaches; 4) the challenges raised to fully specified principlism by the uncodifiability thesis and 5) finally offer a defense of the uncodifiability thesis against various critiques that have been raised.

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.

An ethical analysis of a prospective new paradigm of life: Nanotechnology-enabled human beings within the framework of principlism.

Nanotechnology (NT)-enabled disease-free life is a form of reconstruction of the human body that promises a paradigm shift toward a new form of human existence in an imaginable life. However, as human reconstruction may be within the limits of the concept of "human enhancement," it is not clear to what extent "enhanced humans" will be ethically acceptable or desired. This study discusses the ethical implications of NT-embedded enhanced humans and this new imaginable life. First, ethical concerns arising from the existence of a grey zone of certain dilemmas regarding benefits and possible/unpredicted risks are addressed in terms of the four main principles of bioethics. Then, we focus on the ethical problems in human nano-enhancement. Finally, we study the methods of analyzing these ethical problems within the framework of principlism to conceive a comprehensive and coherent bioethical understanding.

Defending explicability as a principle for the ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine.

The difficulty of explaining the outputs of artificial intelligence (AI) models and what has led to them is a notorious ethical problem wherever these technologies are applied, including in the medical domain, and one that has no obvious solution. This paper examines the proposal, made by Luciano Floridi and colleagues, to include a new 'principle of explicability' alongside the traditional four principles of bioethics that make up the theory of 'principlism'. It specifically responds to a recent set of criticisms that challenge the supposed need for such a principle to perform an enabling role in relation to the traditional four principles and therefore suggest that these four are sufficient without the addition of explicability. The paper challenges the critics' premise that explicability cannot be an ethical principle like the classic four because it is explicitly subordinate to them. It argues instead that principlism in its original formulation locates the justification for ethical principles in a midlevel position such that they mediate between the most general moral norms and the contextual requirements of medicine. This conception of an ethical principle then provides a mold for an approach to explicability on which it functions as an enabling principle that unifies technical/epistemic demands on AI and the requirements of high-level ethical theories. The paper finishes by anticipating an objection that decision-making by clinicians and AI fall equally, but implausibly, under the principle of explicability's scope, which it rejects on the grounds that human decisions, unlike AI's, can be explained by their social environments.

Abortion, euthanasia, and the limits of principlism.

Principlism is an ethical framework that has dominated bioethical discourse for the past 50 years. There are differing perspectives on its proper scope and limits. In this article, we consider to what extent principlism provides guidance for the abortion and euthanasia debates. We argue that whilst principlism may be considered a useful framework for structuring bioethical discourse, it does not in itself allow for the resolution of these neuralgic policy discussions. Scholars have attempted to use principlism to analyse the ethics and legality of abortion and euthanasia; but such efforts are methodologically problematic. We close with a consideration of the proper scope of principlism in bioethics-a vision that is more modest than the manner in which principlism is often deployed in contemporary academic bioethics and medical education.

Evidence to guide ethical decision-making in the management of older people living in squalor: a narrative review.

Older people living in squalor present healthcare providers with a set of complex issues because squalor occurs alongside a variety of medical and psychiatric conditions, and older people living in squalor frequently decline intervention. To synthesise empirical evidence on squalor to inform ethical decision-making in the management of squalor using the bioethical framework of principlism. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases for empirical research on squalor in older people. Given the limited evidence base to date, an interpretive approach to synthesis was used. Sixty-seven articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Our synthesis of the research evidence indicates that: (i) older people living in squalor have a high prevalence of frontal executive dysfunction, medical comorbidities and premature deaths; (ii) interventions are complex and require interagency involvement, with further evaluations needed to determine the effectiveness and potential harm of interventions; and (iii) older people living in squalor utilise more medical and social resources, and may negatively impact others around them. These results suggest that autonomous decision-making capacity should be determined rather than assumed. The harm associated with squalid living for the older person, and for others around them, means a non-interventional approach is likely to contravene the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. Adequate assessment of decision-making capacity is of particular importance. To be ethical, any intervention undertaken must balance benefits, harms, resource utilisation and impact on others.

Explicability of artificial intelligence in radiology: Is a fifth bioethical principle conceptually necessary?

Recent years have witnessed intensive efforts to specify which requirements ethical artificial intelligence (AI) must meet. General guidelines for ethical AI consider a varying number of principles important. A frequent novel element in these guidelines, that we have bundled together under the term explicability, aims to reduce the black-box character of machine learning algorithms. The centrality of this element invites reflection on the conceptual relation between explicability and the four bioethical principles. This is important because the application of general ethical frameworks to clinical decision-making entails conceptual questions: Is explicability a free-standing principle? Is it already covered by the well-established four bioethical principles? Or is it an independent value that needs to be recognized as such in medical practice? We discuss these questions in a conceptual-ethical analysis, which builds upon the findings of an empirical document analysis. On the example of the medical specialty of radiology, we analyze the position of radiological associations on the ethical use of medical AI. We address three questions: Are there references to explicability or a similar concept? What are the reasons for such inclusion? Which ethical concepts are referred to?

Applying Bioethics Across Cultures.

BACKGROUND: In our multicultural society, as well as when working internationally, emergency physicians (EPs) frequently see patients from cultures with communitarian or hierarchal structures. These groups may rely on traditional medical practices and view health care decisions through a lens other than patient autonomy. This leads to uncertainty about who can legitimately make decisions for patients and how to apply basic ethical principles. Because the commonly taught ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and distributive justice) are loosely defined, they provide little help to EPs when working with cultures that de-emphasize Western individualism. CASE REPORT: The case illustrates this complexity by detailing how visiting EPs dealt with leaders from a communitarian culture who demanded that a preteen be treated for a femur fracture by a traditional bone healer rather than with modern techniques. DISCUSSION: The Western-trained clinicians struggled with their ethical responsibility to protect the child's welfare within the social setting: What should beneficence look like in this situation and to whom did it apply? More broadly, this paper examines the bases on which health care professionals might justify overruling parental decisions. It also asks whether the lack of clarity of the most used Western ethical principles suggests the need to broaden clinical ethics education to include issues from other cultures and settings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite principlism's shortcomings, the ease of teaching ethics to health care providers by grouping basic philosophical ideas suggests that we continue to use its structure. As educators and practitioners, we should, however, expand the concept of principlism to better address ethical values and issues found across different cultures.

Medical Ethics as Taught and as Practiced: Principlism, Narrative Ethics, and the Case of Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

The dominant model for bioethical inquiry taught in medical schools is that of principlism. The heritage of this methodology can be traced to the Enlightenment project of generating a universalizable justification for normative morality arising from within the individual, rational agent. This project has been criticized by Alasdair MacIntyre who suggests that its failure has resulted in a fragmented and incoherent contemporary ethical framework characterized by fundamental intractability in moral debate. This incoherence implicates principlist conceptions of bioethics. Medical ethics as practiced, though, is partially in keeping with teleological alternatives to principlism. Nonetheless, the hegemony of principlism threatens to harm the practice of good medicine whenever it is used to provide justification for the sanction or prohibition of practices, despite not being equipped to grant moral authority to such justifications. An example of this failure and its resulting harm is expressed in the growing obsolescence of living donor liver transplantation.