PurposeThe purported benefits and risks of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery have been well described, yet the procedure remains controversial among UK ophthalmologists. As many of the controversies of ISBCS are underpinned by ethical dilemmas, the aim of this work was to explore the ethical perspectives of ISBCS from a variety of stakeholder viewpoints.MethodA semi-structured independent stakeholder meeting was convened at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists London headquarters in June 2018. In total, 29 stakeholders attended the meeting. The professional characteristics (...) of stakeholders included but were not limited to: ophthalmologists, patients, religious leaders, ethicists, lawyers and commissioners. Thematic qualitative analysis using methodology proposed by Braun and Clarke was conducted on the resultant transcript of the discussion.ResultsThemes identified include: beneficence and non-maleficence ; autonomy ; distributive justice.ConclusionThis analysis provides a reference point for the ethical factors surrounding ISBCS. The stakeholders concluded that this approach was an ethical undertaking provided patient autonomy was appropriately attained. This requires a patient’s interpretation of the risk-benefit balance, which must include an understanding of the low but unquantifiable risk of severe complications. A surgeon must aim to minimise risks through the adaption of accepted surgical protocols and by performing appropriate patient selection. Currently, cost savings to healthcare that may occur following the implementation of ISBCS should be considered a secondary benefit of the protocol. (shrink)

In the wake of two recent high-profile, controversial cases involving the prosecution and conviction of Drs Bramhall and Bawa-Garba, this article considers when it is socially desirable to criminalise doctors’ behaviour, exploring how the matters of harm, public wrongs and the public interest can play out to justify—or not, as the case may be—the criminal law’s intervention. Dr Bramhall branded his initials on patients’ livers during transplant surgery, behaviour acknowledged not to have caused his patients any harm by way of (...) injury to their organs. Dr Bawa-Garba misdiagnosed and failed to properly assess a 6-year-old boy with pneumonia and sepsis under her care, who subsequently died. Taking account of contextual and public interest concerns, can and should there be exceptions to imposing criminal liability where a doctor’s behaviour is deemed grossly negligent and a significant contribution to a patient’s death? And is it really appropriate to subject a doctor to penal sanction where he may have committed a private wrong against a patient, but does not set back their interests? (shrink)

PurposeThe purported benefits and risks of immediately sequential bilateral cataract surgery have been well described, yet the procedure remains controversial among UK ophthalmologists. As many of the controversies of ISBCS are underpinned by ethical dilemmas, the aim of this work was to explore the ethical perspectives of ISBCS from a variety of stakeholder viewpoints.MethodA semi-structured independent stakeholder meeting was convened at the Royal College of Ophthalmologists London headquarters in June 2018. In total, 29 stakeholders attended the meeting. The professional characteristics (...) of stakeholders included but were not limited to: ophthalmologists, patients, religious leaders, ethicists, lawyers and commissioners. Thematic qualitative analysis using methodology proposed by Braun and Clarke was conducted on the resultant transcript of the discussion.ResultsThemes identified include: beneficence and non-maleficence ; autonomy ; distributive justice.ConclusionThis analysis provides a reference point for the ethical factors surrounding ISBCS. The stakeholders concluded that this approach was an ethical undertaking provided patient autonomy was appropriately attained. This requires a patient’s interpretation of the risk-benefit balance, which must include an understanding of the low but unquantifiable risk of severe complications. A surgeon must aim to minimise risks through the adaption of accepted surgical protocols and by performing appropriate patient selection. Currently, cost savings to healthcare that may occur following the implementation of ISBCS should be considered a secondary benefit of the protocol. (shrink)

Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions (DNACPR) are considered good medical practice for those dying at the end of natural life. They avoid intrusive and inappropriate intervention. Historically, informing patients of these decisions was discretionary to avoid undue distress. Recent legal rulings have altered clinical guidance: disclosure is now all but obligatory. The basis for these legal judgments was respect for the patient’s autonomy as an expression of their human rights. Through critical analysis, this paper explores other bioethical considerations and (...) the potential harms if they are ignored. Arguably, disclosure of DNACPR status on its own will do little to improve patient experience. A focus on good communication with those identified as approaching end-of-life will facilitate personalized care. Discussions around DNACPR may still occur, but only if likely to be beneficial and at a patient-appropriate pace (not dictated by the need to activate the decision). (shrink)

BackgroundHumanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care—a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, (...) the WHO released a guide on‘Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises’—the first guidance on the topic by an international body.AimsThis paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances.ImplicationsIn parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance. (shrink)

As the USA contends with another surge in COVID-19 cases, hospitals may soon need to answer the unresolved question of who lives and dies when ventilator demand exceeds supply. Although most triage policies in the USA have seemingly converged on the use of clinical need and benefit as primary criteria for prioritisation, significant differences exist between institutions in how to assign priority to patients with identical medical prognoses: the so-called ‘tie-breaker’ situations. In particular, one’s status as a frontline healthcare worker (...) has been a proposed criterion for prioritisation in the event of a tie. This article outlines two major grounds for reconsidering HCW prioritisation. The first recognises trust as an indispensable element of clinical care and mistrust as a hindrance to any public health strategy against the virus, thus raising concerns about the outward appearance of favouritism. The second considers the ways in which proponents of HCW prioritisation deviate from the very ‘ethics frameworks’ that often preface triage policies and serve to guide resource allocation—a rhetorical strategy that may undermine the very ethical foundations on which triage policies stand. By appealing to trust and consistency, we re-examine existing arguments in favour of HCW prioritisation and provide a more tenable justification for adjudicating on tie-breaker events during crisis standards of care. (shrink)

Deprescribing is the term used to describe the process of withdrawal of an inappropriate medication supervised by a clinician. This article presents a discussion of how the Four Principles of biomedical ethics that may guide medical practitioners’ prescribing practices apply to deprescribing medications in older adults. The view of deprescribing as an act creates stronger moral duties than if viewed as an omission. This may explain the fear of negative outcomes which has been reported by prescribers as a barrier to (...) deprescribing. Respecting the autonomy of older adults is complex as they may not wish to be active in the decision-making process; they may also have reduced cognitive function and family members may therefore have to step in as surrogate decision-makers. Informed consent is intended as a process of information giving and reflection, where consent can be withdrawn at any time. However, people are rarely updated on the altered risks and benefits of their long-term medications as they age. Cessation of inappropriate medication use has a large financial benefit to the individual and the community. However, the principle of justice also dictates equal rights to treatment regardless of age. (shrink)

Background and rationale Clinicians often encounter a variety of ethical challenges in their routine clinical practice, and it varies across healthcare and cultural settings of their practice. Despite of this, there are no clear-cut available guidelines concerning the right course of action in a given ethically challenging situation. A validated instrument that could capture the health care providers’ viewpoints in this regard is lacking from Indian settings. Thus, the current study aimed at developing an instrument to assess the HCP’s perspective (...) regarding different ethically challenging situations encountered in the Indian settings. Methods The questionnaire was developed by involving 15 medical experts. A mixed-method approach, Delphi-technique, and online survey were used for item generation and validation. Results The questionnaire comprised of 11 items representing four factors: health-resource constraints, medical responsibility of the HCP, obtaining patients/family members’ consent for the treatment, and treatment beyond the standard protocol. The gender and clinical disciplines of the participants were related to their level of endorsement for various domains of the ECCS-Q. Conclusions Ethical challenges in the clinical practice fall in different clusters. The clinicians’ course of action in such situations have many socio-demographic and professional determinants. Future studies are warranted to investigate these phenomena. (shrink)