During the COVID-19 pandemic, global healthcare systems faced unprecedented challenges, with a lack of resources and suboptimal patient care emerging as primary concerns. Our research, using a comprehensive 24-item electronic questionnaire, “Reflections on the Provision of Healthcare during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” delved into the experiences of 938 physicians across the Czech Republic. Over fifty per cent observed a “lower standard of care” compared to pre-pandemic levels. A division arose among physicians regarding a decision’s medical, ethical, or legal basis, with a (...) notable gender disparity: male doctors leaned towards medical perspectives, whereas females accented the ethical perspective. Decision-making concerning health care limitations required agreement among the physicians on duty, interdisciplinary teams, or shift supervisors. Physicians reported varying degrees of patient or family participation in health care decisions. Variables such as age, pre-existing health conditions, and life expectancy influenced care decisions. Surprisingly, half of the physicians faced refusals of patients’ transportation to better-equipped facilities due to resource constraints. One-third of physicians never discuss the decision about care limitation and other options with patients or their families. As a result, almost fifty per cent of the physicians rarely or never imparted information about care limitations to patients. The survey shed light on the profound ethical dilemmas hospital physicians face across different types of healthcare facilities during the pandemic. It uncovered the need for open dialogue and scholarly debate on resource allocation and strengthening the role of patients and their families in care decisions in future healthcare crises. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Background: Experiencing ethical problems requires both ethically problematic situations and ethical sensitivity. Ethically problematic treatment decisions are distressing and might reflect health care quality problems. Whether all physicians actually experience ethical problems, what these problems are and how they vary according to physician age, gender and work sector are largely unknown. Methods: A mail survey of all non‐retired physicians licensed in Finland (n = 17,172, response rate 75.6%). Results: The proportion of physicians reporting having made ethically problematic treatment decisions (...) decreased in linear fashion from 60% at ages below 30 years to 21% at ages over 63 years. The only problem that did not decrease in frequency with age was having withdrawn necessary treatments. Women and primary care physicians reported problematic decisions most often, although gender differences were small. Primary care physicians most often reported having performed too many investigations or having pressured patients, whereas hospital physicians emphasized having withdrawn necessary treatments. Performing unnecessary treatments or investigations was explained by pressure from patients or relatives, and performing too few treatments or investigations was explained by inadequate resources. Conclusions: In general, young physicians felt pressured to do too much, whereas older physicians felt they could not do enough due to inadequate resources. Older physicians might be less exposed to ethically problematic situations, be more able to handle them or have lower ethical sensitivity. Young physicians could benefit from support in resisting pressure to perform unnecessary treatments, whereas older physicians might benefit from training in recognizing ethical issues. (shrink)

In contemporary liberal ethics patient autonomy is often interpreted as the right to self-determination: when it comes to treatment decisions, the patient is given the right to give or withhold informed consent. This paper joins in the philosophical and ethical criticism of the liberal interpretation as it does not regard patient autonomy as a right, rule or principle, but rather as a practice. Patient autonomy, or so I will argue, is realised in the concrete activities of day-to-day health care, in (...) the material and technological context of care, in arrangements of health care institutions, in the physical training of people with disabilities, as well as in the concrete activities of care-giving. This move from conversations in the consultation room to other sites and situations in the practice of care takes seriously the empirical reality of medical care and intends to show that patient autonomy is practically realised in a much richer and more creative way than most ethical theory seems to assume. (shrink)