This paper responds to a proposal for an intersectional approach to the clinical encounter between patient and medical provider. We agree that an intersectional framework offers new insights and information in the clinical encounter. Intersectionality involves awareness of the physician-patient dynamic, and understanding the various privileges and disadvantages of all parties involved, at a micro and macroscopic level. Yet, this analysis alone is insufficient to aid in the clinical encounter and risks harm. We worry about a clinician making assumptions about (...) her patient’s race, gender, economic status, and how these influence the patient’s own views of her life and health. We argue that a narrative supplement is a necessary element of intersectional clinical encounters. Prioritizing patient narrative curtails assumptions, builds trust, and improves care. (shrink)

Background Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, (...) although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice. Methods We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation. Results The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur. Conclusions The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations. (shrink)

BackgroundBioethics can play an important role in addressing diversity both in and outside of academia, setting precedents for meaningful contributions to public discourse, research, teaching, training, and policy development. However, in order to do so, these conversations also need to reflect on the issue of diversity within the field of bioethics across the globe. This study aims to examine current gender representation and diversity at medical ethics and humanities institutes in Germany, the German-speaking areas of Switzerland, and Austria.MethodsA total of (...) forty-nine medical ethics and humanities institutes from Germany (n=42), the German-speaking areas of Switzerland (n=5), and Austria (n=2) were included in the study. Institutes websites were reviewed in the first week of March 2021 and the details of each staff member listed on the website recorded.ResultsOverall, a total of 964 staff members were identified at the forty-nine German-speaking medical ethics and humanities institutes. Just over half (530/964; 55%) of all staff were female. There were significant differences between gender in some staff positions: 64.6 per cent (31/48) of directors were male (χ2(1)=4.1, P=.04); 62.7 per cent (84/134) of student assistants were female (χ2(1)=8.6, P=.003); and 83.7 per cent (77/92) of administrative staff were female (χ2(1)=41.8, P<.001). There were no significant differences between staff gender for researchers and lecturers, or associated researchers. In addition, 65.5 per cent (19/29) of researchers and lecturers who had a professor title were male, but the difference between genders was not found to be significant. However, significantly more of the researchers and lecturers who had completed a habilitation were male (75.8% (25/33); χ2(1)=8.8, P=.003). When comparing the institute director’s gender presentation with staff gender presentation, it was found that male-led institutes had 53.4 per cent (286/536) female staff overall but had 52.7 per cent (136/258) male researchers and lecturers. However, the difference between genders were not found to be significant. On the other hand, female-led institutes had significantly more female staff overall (59.9% (223/372); χ2(1)=14.7, P<.001) and also significantly more female researchers and lecturers (58.9% (119/202; χ2(1)=6.4, P=.01).ConclusionsThere has been a significant push to address gender diversity in German-speaking academia, and this study finds overall good gender parity in medical ethics and humanities institutes. However, there has not been a similar openness to discussing issues of systemic racism or how other forms of inequality affect academic diversity. Taking diversity seriously requires opening up conversations around intersectionality, including difficult conversations around race and cultural background that have long been taboo in German-speaking countries. (shrink)

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. (...) Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Im internationalen Diskurs sind feministische Perspektiven auf die Medizinethik bereits etabliert. Demgegenüber scheinen diese bislang nur vereinzelt in den deutschsprachigen medizinethischen Diskurs eingebracht zu werden. In diesem Artikel untersuchen wir, welche feministischen Perspektiven im deutschsprachigen medizinethischen Diskurs vertreten sind, und schlagen weitere Ansätze für eine feministische Medizinethik vor. Zu diesem Zweck zeichnen wir mittels einer systematisierten Literaturrecherche feministische Perspektiven im deutschsprachigen medizinethischen Diskurs seit der Etablierung der Medizinethik als eigenständiger institutionalisierter Disziplin nach. Wir analysieren, welche Themen bereits innerhalb der (...) Medizinethik aus einer feministischen Perspektive untersucht worden sind, und identifizieren Leerstellen. Basierend auf der Literaturrecherche, unseren eigenen Vorarbeiten sowie der Zusammenarbeit in der Arbeitsgruppe in der Akademie für Ethik in der Medizin „Feministische Perspektiven in der Bio- und Medizinethik“ stellen wir drei Thesen vor, die aus unserer Sicht einer Weiterentwicklung des deutschsprachigen medizinethischen Diskurses dienen können. Die erste These bezieht sich auf die Ziele feministischer Medizinethiken und besagt, dass diese (epistemische) Gerechtigkeit anstreben. Die zweite These stellt zentrale Eigenschaften von feministischen Medizinethiken als kritisch und kontext-sensibel heraus. In der dritten These diskutieren wir Intersektionalität und Postkolonialismus als theoretische Ansätze, die zu einer epistemisch gerechten, kritischen und kontext-sensiblen Medizinethik beitragen können. Wir argumentieren, dass feministische Perspektiven grundständig verankert werden sollten. Der Artikel schließt mit einem Ausblick auf die Arbeit der im letzten Jahr gegründeten Arbeitsgruppe in der Akademie für Ethik in der Medizin „Feministische Perspektiven in der Bio- und Medizinethik“. (shrink)

Definition of the problemFeminist approaches to medical ethics are well established in international discourses. By contrast, in the German-speaking medical ethical discourse, they still seem to be rather marginal. In this article, we analyze which feminist perspectives are prominent in German medical ethics and suggest new approaches.ArgumentsWe present our results from a systematized review of the literature, in which we identify existing feminist approaches within the German-speaking medical ethics discourse as well as research gaps. Based on the review, our preliminary (...) research and discussions in the working group “Feminist perspectives in bio and medical ethics”, we defend three hypotheses aimed at advancing the German feminist medical ethical discourse. We posit that (1) feminist medical ethics aim at (epistemic) justice, (2) feminist medical ethics are critical and context-sensitive, and (3) intersectional and postcolonial approaches within feminist medical ethics may contribute to epistemically just, critical, and context-sensitive medical ethics.ConclusionWe argue that feminist perspectives should be implemented as a fundamental perspective in medical ethics because they can bring together key dimensions such as epistemically just, critical, context-sensitive, intersectional, and postcolonial thinking. (shrink)

In March of 2021, a woman named Ashley Caswell was arrested in Etowah County, Alabama after testing positive for methamphetamine (Levin 2023). Ms. Caswell was two months pregnant and was arrested f...

Recent global events demonstrate that analytical frameworks to aid professionals in healthcare ethics must consider the pervasive role of social structures in the emergence of bioethical issues. To address this, the authors propose a new sociologically informed approach to healthcare ethics that they term “social bioethics.” Their approach is animated by the interpretive social sciences to highlight how social structures operate vis-à-vis the everyday practices and moral reasoning of individuals, a phenomenon known as social discourse. As an exemplar, the authors (...) use social bioethics to reframe common ethical issues in psychiatric services and discuss potential implications. Lastly, the authors discuss how social bioethics illuminates the ways healthcare ethics consultants in both policy and clinical decision-making participate in and shape broader social, political, and economic systems, which then cyclically informs the design and delivery of healthcare. (shrink)

El derecho a migrar, como el derecho a la salud del migrante, se encuentran reconocidos en la Ley de Migraciones Nro. 25871/2003 de Argentina. Dicha ley constituye un avance legislativo en derechos humanos; resultado de un largo proceso constituyente, deliberativo, que dio lugar a un modelo inclusivo de migración sin precedentes internacionales en su momento. Sin embargo, recientemente asistimos a un giro en políticas migratorias (DNU 70/2017). Como consecuencia, se produce un retroceso en derechos sociales y políticos. En lo que (...) hace al derecho a la salud, la instauración de políticas neoconservadoras (Cobertura Universal de la Salud –CUS-) impulsó leyes provinciales (Ley 6119/2019) destinadas a exigir seguros pagos de salud para migrantes, contrarios a nuestra constitución. El objetivo del presente trabajo es analizar las raíces de éstos cambios en las normativas citadas sobre migraciones y salud; aplicando un marco de justicia social que nos permita comprender, críticamente, cómo la bifurcación de políticas distributivas y de reconocimiento en las mismas legislaciones habilitó el desarrollo de políticas neoconservadoras impuestas a través de decretos autoritarios; cuyas consecuencias trascienden la esfera de los migrantes, haciendo peligrar al mismo sistema de salud argentino como bien público. (shrink)

Background Intersectionality is a concept that originated in Black feminist movements in the US-American context of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in the work of feminist scholar and lawyer Kimberlé W. Crenshaw. Intersectional approaches aim to highlight the interconnectedness of gender and sexuality with other social categories, such as race, class, age, and ability to look at how individuals are discriminated against and privileged in institutions and societal power structures. Intersectionality is a “traveling concept”, which also made its way into (...) bioethical research. Methods We conducted a systematic review to answer the question of where and how the concept of intersectionality is applied in bioethical research. The PubMed and Web of Science databases were systematically searched and 192 articles addressing bioethical topics and intersectionality were finally included. Results The qualitative analysis resulted in a category system with five main categories: (1) application purpose and function, (2) social dimensions, (3) levels, (4) health-care disciplines and academic fields, and (5) challenges, limitations, and critique. The variety of academic fields and health-care disciplines working with the concept ranges from psychology, through gynaecology to palliative care and deaf studies. Important functions that the concept of intersectionality fulfils in bioethical research are making inequities visible, creating better health data collections and embracing self-reflection. Intersectionality is also a critical praxis and fits neatly into the overarching goal of bioethics to work toward social justice in health care. Intersectionality aims at making research results relevant for respective communities and patients, and informs the development of policies. Conclusions This systematic review is, to the best of our knowledge, the first one to provide a full overview of the reference to intersectionality in bioethical scholarship. It creates a basis for future research that applies intersectionality as a theoretical and methodical tool for analysing bioethical questions. (shrink)

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers reported a surprising trend in disease outcomes: men were more likely to require hospitalization and die from COVID-19 than women. Researchers looked to sex-linked biology to explain these disparities, hypothesizing innate sex differences in immune function, suggesting the use of estrogens or androgen-suppressants as therapy, and even pushing for sex-specific vaccine strategies. Leading bioethicists like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel at the University of Pennsylvania recently described the sex disparity in COVID-19 outcomes as "the unsolved mystery" (...) of the... (shrink)

In this article, I begin by describing what I call this Black Lives Matter moment in the US. I then offer three reasons for considering racism as a bioethical issue, the least discussed of which is the way in which racism acts as a barrier to the creation of better healthcare systems. Next, I argue that the concept of race itself constitutes a bioethical issue in a way that is not fully reducible to racism. Finally, I discuss how we, both (...) bioethicists and health care professionals, might meet this moment by identifying individual points of responsibility (beyond liability) for structural injustice. (shrink)

Racism is a key driver of the social, political, and economic injustices that cause and maintain health inequities. Over centuries and across continents, racism has become deeply ingrained within societies. Therefore, we believe that it is our professional and ethical obligation as scientists, and public health scholars specifically, to address racism head on in order to ameliorate racialized health disparities. We argue that greater focus is needed on addressing racism rather than race and how race is described or defined. We (...) offer input from public health scholarship to help bioethicists and other scientists contribute to addressing racism. To do so effectively and comprehensively, public health scholars, bioethicists, and other scientists should work together to identify and implement equity-driven collaborations to eliminate the deleterious effects of racism on individuals, families, and communities. (shrink)

Intersectionality has become a significant intellectual approach for those thinking about the ways that race, gender, and other social identities converge in order to create unique forms of oppression. Although the initial work on intersectionality addressed the unique position of black women relative to both black men and white women, the concept has since been expanded to address a range of social identities. Here we consider how to apply some of the theoretical tools provided by intersectionality to the clinical context. (...) We begin with a brief discussion of intersectionality and how it might be useful in a clinical context. We then discuss two clinical scenarios that highlight how we think considering intersectionality could lead to more successful patient–clinician interactions. Finally, we extrapolate general strategies for applying intersectionality to the clinical context before considering objections and replies. (shrink)

In her evocative article “Meeting the Moment: Bioethics in the Time of Black Lives Matter,” Camisha Russell comprehensively illustrates why racism should be considered an important bioethica...