Every day around the country, patients are discharged from hospitals without difficulty, as the interests of the hospital and the patient tend to align: both the hospital and the patient want the patient to leave and go to a setting that will promote the patient’s continued recovery. In some cases, however, this usually routine process does not go quite as smoothly. Patients may not want to leave the hospital, or they may insist on an unsafe discharge plan. In other cases, (...) there may simply be no good place for the patient to go. These complex hospital discharge situations often involve ethical, legal, financial, and practical considerations, but the ethical issues inherent in these dilemmas have received only sporadic attention from clinical ethicists at best, leaving patients, providers, administrators, and caregivers unsure about what to do. When the ethical issues are in fact brought to light, analysis usually proceeds based on a consideration of the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. However, principled analysis often fails to present patients and providers with a satisfactory solution, as the principles inevitably conflict. In this paper, I argue that difficult discharges are ethical dilemmas worthy of scholarly attention that goes beyond principlism, and I argue that providers and those involved in discharge planning ought to cultivate what philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls “virtues of acknowledged dependence” in order to care for these patients and their families. I first trace the current conversation about difficult discharge and show that the principled approach to resolving discharge dilemmas is not sufficient. I then argue that a new approach is needed, and to that end, I offer practical ways in which MacIntyre’s account of the virtues of acknowledged dependence may help patients, providers, and family members to navigate issues of difficult discharge. (shrink)

How do we respond to the patient who no longer needs inpatient care but refuses to leave the hospital? Complex hospital discharges commonly involve consideration of legal, financial, clinical, and practical issues. Yet, the ethical and contextual issues embedded in complex inpatient discharges are of concern and have not received adequate attention by medical ethicists. The aim of this work is to encourage clinicians and administrators to incorporate a justice rubric when approaching inpatient discharge dilemmas. This paper presents justice as (...) the ethical principle most neglected in situations involving complex discharges and suggests that a justice focused lens allows clinicians and administrators to move beyond notions of patient autonomy in crafting morally responsible hospital discharge decisions that reflect efficient stewardship of an appropriate share of medically indicated services. This issue deserves additional attention from medical ethicists in the future. (shrink)

Hospitals in the United States have been engaging in the practice of returning immigrant patients, usually undocumented immigrant patients, to their country of origin when the patient has long-term medical needs for which no reimbursement is available. I argue that for such an action to be ethical, it must be done in accordance with the mission and values of hospitals. I describe three standards that an individual instance of repatriation must meet to be ethical: (1) patient best interests, (2) medical (...) due diligence, and (3) informed consent. I argue that these should form the basis for best practices in regard to medical repatriation for all hospitals in the United States. (shrink)

In February 2016 a twelve-month-old asylum seeker, who came to be know as Baby Asha, was transferred from Nauru and hospitalized in Brisbane. This case came to public attention after Doctors refused to discharge Asha as she would have been returned to detention on Nauru. What in other circumstances would have been considered routine clinical care, quickly turned into an act of civil disobedience. This paper will discuss the ethical aspects of this case, along with its implications for clinicians and (...) the broader healthcare community. (shrink)