The COVID-19 pandemic has had, and still has, the risk to have an enormous impact on how people socially interact with each other due to possible lockdowns, quarantine and isolation measures to reduce infection rates. Consequently, these measures hold great implications for those medical disciplines that inherently rely on social interaction, such as psychiatry. In their article, ‘Can you hear me?’— Communication, Relationship and Ethics in Video-based Telepsychiatric Consultations’, Frittgen and Haltaufderheide1 show that videoconferencing holds potential to ensure that this (...) social interaction is guaranteed, be it in a technology mediated manner. In this sense, videoconferencing needs to be conceived as a pharmakon, a medicine, having both curative and toxifying elements, depending on why and how it is used.2 For example, videoconferencing allows continuity of care when physical proximity is impossible. At the same time, it allows the patient to interrupt the therapy by muting the therapist or ending the call at his/her convenience. To guarantee the curative side of videoconferencing, and as such avoid the toxifying elements, an ethical prescription needs to be developed and used. Despite the fact that videoconferencing seems to have a similar clinical effectiveness as face-to-face interaction, Frittgen and Haltaufderheide rightly point out that there are ethical impacts to be addressed to avoid …. (shrink)

There is robust scientific evidence from meta-analyses in psychotherapy research that common factors such as the alliance between patients and therapists, empathy, goal consensus/collaboration, positive regard/affirmation and genuineness have a much greater effect on the overall psychotherapy outcome than the so-called specific factors like particular treatment methods or ingredients of therapy.1 The current evidence base also suggests that the effects of telepsychiatric treatment are comparable with those of face-to-face treatment, not only regarding clinical outcome parameters but also with respect to (...) patient satisfaction, acceptance and adherence—all common factors of psychotherapy.2 According to a comprehensive review of the main ethical arguments for and against different forms of online psychotherapy, the online setting provides several weighty advantages: for example, increased access, availability, flexibility, convenience, satisfaction, acceptance and increased demand.3 Among the arguments against online psychotherapy, privacy, confidentiality and data security issues, emergency issues, as well as communication issues have been mentioned.3 Frittgen and Haltaufderheide 4 are concerned that telepsychiatry could ‘impact ethically relevant aspects of the therapeutic relationship’. They conclude that ‘there is evidence for ethically relevant changes of the therapeutic relationship in video-based telepsychiatric consultations’,4 particularly pertaining to ‘respect for autonomy, lucidity, fidelity, justice and humanity towards each other’.4 Indeed, video-based consultations as technically mediated communication ‘do not only transmit but transform what can be perceived, …. (shrink)

Although telepsychiatry consultations have been tried and tested for several years, at least in relatively limited numbers and settings, the current COVID-19 pandemic has caused an exponential increase in their application. Even as lockdown restrictions were lifted and a return to face-to-face consultations was possible, many practitioners and patients decided to uphold teleconsultations for some or a large part of their interactions. This was mostly driven by the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic, as ongoing safety concerns, the need for PPE (...) use and uncertainty around whether face-to-face meetings could go ahead continued to form barriers to usual care practices. Frittgen and Haltaufderheide aptly hypothesise that extensive changes in online communication behaviour will also impact ethical aspects of the therapeutic relationship.1 After considering how the use of technology may affect the therapeutic relationship in video-based consultations, they provide an ethical analysis of this impact along four dimensions: respect for autonomy, lucidity, fidelity and humanity.1 In this commentary I will have a look at the difference between crisis standards of care and usual care, the need to consider specific patient needs in teleconsultation use, the importance of justice understood as equity and access to technology, and a major challenge ahead. Throughout history, crisis situations have often been major catalysts of technological and other progress. Under challenging …. (shrink)

Digital contact tracing is used in different countries to help contain the COVID-19 pandemic. It raises challenging empirical and ethical questions due to its complexity and widespread effects calling for a broader approach in ethical evaluation. However, existing approaches often fail to include all relevant value perspectives or lack reference to empirical data on the artifact in question. In this paper, we describe the development of an interdisciplinary framework to analyze digital contact tracing from an empirical and ethical perspective. Starting (...) with an analysis of methodological tensions in the attempt to analyze digital contact tracing, we, firstly, set out three methodological premises regarding (a) a specific view of technology, (b) a fruitful normative perspective, and (c) ways to gather empirical knowledge about the object under investigation. Secondly, we inspect consequences of these premises to develop our research methodology. In doing so, we argue for a postphenomenological perspective on technology, solidarity as an important concept to guide the ethical perspective, and an empirical approach based on qualitative social science research and the concept of affordances. We illustrate these considerations by referring to our analysis of the German Corona-Warn-App as an instance of contact tracing based on the Exposure Notification Framework by Google and Apple. We then discuss the implications of using such a framework, including considerations concerning future developments of technologies similar to or inspired by the current concepts of contact tracing. (shrink)

The global crisis of COVID-19 pandemic has considerably accelerated the use of teleconsultation (consultation between the patient and the doctor via video platforms). While it has some obvious benefits and drawbacks for both the patient and the doctor, it is important to consider—how teleconsultation impacts the quality of the patient-doctor relationship? I will approach this question through the lens of phenomenology of the body, focusing on the question—what happens to the patient objectification in teleconsultation? To answer this question I will (...) adopt a phenomenological approach combining both insights drawn from the phenomenological tradition, i.e., the concepts of the lived body and the object body, and the results from the phenomenologically informed qualitative research study on the patient experience of teleconsultation. The theoretical background against which I have developed this study comprises discussions within the field of phenomenology of medicine regarding the different sources of patient objectification within clinical encounter and the arguments concerning the negative impact that objectification has on the quality of care. I will argue that a factor that has frequently been identified within phenomenology of medicine as the main source of patient objectification in clinical encounters, namely, the internalized gaze of the clinician, is diminished during teleconsultation, increasing patient’s sense of agency, decreasing her sense of alienation and opening up the possibility for a closer relationship between the patient and the health care provider, all of which lead to the transformation of the hierarchical patient-health care professional relationship. (shrink)