Background Ethical conflicts generate difficulties in daily clinical activity. Which methods of ethical advice are most frequently used to resolve them among Spanish doctors has not been studied. The objective of this study is to describe what methods hospital internal medicine physicians in Spain use to resolve their ethical doubts and which they consider most useful. Design A cross-sectional observational study was conducted through a voluntary and anonymous survey and distributed through an ad hoc platform of the Spanish Society of (...) Internal Medicine. Measures We measured methods by which to resolve doubts, types of tools sought, frequency of consulting the Clinical Ethics Committees, and satisfaction with resolution of ethical issues. Results Of 261 internists surveyed, 86 per cent resolve their ethical doubts with assistance, the most frequently used method being consultation with colleagues (58.6 per cent), followed by using specific protocols or guides (11.8 per cent) and consultation with experts in bioethics (9.6 per cent). The most preferred tools are the creation of protocols (30.3 per cent) and the establishment of a consultant/expert in bioethics (27.8 per cent). Conclusions Internists in Spain usually seek assistance to resolve their ethical doubts. Consulting colleagues is the most frequently adopted method. The majority regard tools to resolve ethical conflicts as necessary, seeking above all protocols and consultants/experts in bioethics. (shrink)

Healthcare professionals often face ethical conflicts and challenges related to decision-making that have necessitated consideration of the use of conscientious objection (CO). No current guidelines exist within Spain’s healthcare system regarding acceptable rationales for CO, the appropriate application of CO, or practical means to support healthcare professionals who wish to become conscientious objectors. As such, a procedural framework is needed that not only assures the appropriate use of CO by healthcare professionals but also demonstrates its ethical validity, legislative compliance through (...) protection of moral freedoms and patients’ rights to receive health care. Our proposal consists of prerequisites of eligibility for CO (individual reference, specific clinical context, ethical justification, assurance of non-discrimination, professional consistency, attitude of mutual respect, assurance of patient rights and safety) and a procedural process (notification and preparation, documentation and confidentiality, evaluation of prerequisites, non-abandonment, transparency, allowance for unforeseen objection, compensatory responsibilities, access to guidance and/or consultative advice, and organizational guarantee of professional substitution). We illustrate the real-world utility of the proposed framework through a case discussion in which our guidelines are applied. (shrink)