There is growing interest in clinical ethics. However, we still have sparse knowledge about what is actually going on in the everyday practice of clinical ethics consultations. This paper introduces a descriptive evaluation tool to present, discuss and compare how clinical ethics case consultations are actually carried out. The tool does not aim to define ‘best practice’. Rather, it facilitates concrete comparisons and evaluative discussions of the role, function, procedures and ideals inherent in clinical ethics case consultation practices. The tool (...) was developed during meetings of the European Clinical Ethics Network. Based on written reports and participation in the network meetings, the development and the content of the tool and the results of its application in presenting and discussing 10 case consultations are summarized. The tool facilitated understanding of the details of clinical ethics case consultations across individuals and institutions with various experiences and cultures, and comparison between various practices. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultations exist to support patients, families and clinicians who are facing ethical or moral challenges related to patient care. They provide a forum for open communication, where all stakeholders are encouraged to express their concerns and articulate their viewpoints. Ethics consultations can be requested by patients, caregivers or members of a patient’s clinical or supportive team. Althoughpatientsand by extension their families (especially in cases of decisional incapacity) are the common denominators in most ethics consultations, these constituents are theleastlikely (...) to request them. At many healthcare organisations in the USA, ethics consultations are overwhelmingly requested by physicians and other clinicians. We believe it is vital that healthcare institutions bridge the knowledge gaps and power imbalances over access to ethics consultation services through augmented policies, procedures and infrastructure. With enhanced education and support, patients and families may use ethics consultation to elevate their voices and prioritise their unique characteristics and preferences in the delivery of their healthcare. Empowering patients and families to request ethics consultation can only strengthen the patient/family–clinician relationship, enhance the shared decision-making model of care and ultimately lead to improved patient-centred care. (shrink)

This paper will present and discuss our conclusions about the ethics of living donation for liver transplant (LDLT) after 8 year of collaboration between our clinical ethics consultation service and liver transplant teams, in the course of which we met with all donor-candidates. We will focus on the results of a follow-up study that was conducted in order to evaluate the long-term consequences for potential donors and to interview them on the ethical aspects of the screening process. This study was (...) conducted from April 2007 to November 2009 and consisted of interviews with donor-candidates, regardless of whether they underwent harvest surgery, at least 1 year after the recipient’s transplant. We explored their views about their own and the recipients’ physical and psychological condition, changes in family and career dynamics, their experience as potential or real donors, and their views about LDLT process in general. Results shed new light on the ethical grounds of LDLT and allow us to envisage new ways of improving the ethical soundness of current procedures and practices. In particular, we argue that the purpose of an ethics committee should be to provide follow-up support for the donors rather than merely to check the freedom of donors’ consent. We also suggest that the recipient’s consent deserves more attention than it currently receives. (shrink)

Clinical ethics has developed significantly in Europe over the past 15 years and remains an evolving process. While sharing our experiences in different European settings, we were surprised to discover marked differences in our practice, especially regarding the position and role of patients. In this paper, we describe these differences, such as patient access to and participation or representation in ethics consults. We propose reasons to explain these differences, hypothesizing that they relate to the historic and sociocultural context of implementation (...) of clinical ethics consultation services (Cecs), as well as the initial aims for which each structure was established. Then, we analyse those differences with common ethical arguments arising in patient involvement. We conclude that there is no unique model of best practice for patient involvement in clinical ethics, as far as Cecs reflect on how to deal with the challenging ethical issues raised by patient role and position. (shrink)

Is there any ethical justification for limiting the reproductive autonomy and not make assisted reproductive technologies available to certain prospective parents? We present and discuss the results of an interdisciplinary clinical ethics study concerning access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in situations which are considered as ethically problematic in France (overage or sick parents, surrogate motherhood). The study focused on the arguments that people in these situations put forward when requesting access to ART. It shows that requester’s arguments are based (...) on sound ethical values, and that their legitimacy is at least as strong as that of those used by doctors to question access to ART. Results reveal that the three implicit normative arguments that founded the law in 1994, which are still in force after the bioethics law revision in July 2011—the welfare of the child, the illegitimacy of a “right to a child,” and the defense of the so called “social order”—are challenged on several grounds by requesters as reasons for limiting their reproductive autonomy. Although these results are limited to exceptional situations, they are of special interest insofar as they give voice to the requesters’ own ethical concerns in the ongoing political debate over access to ART. (shrink)

In France, bioethics norms have emerged in close interaction with medical practices. The first bioethics laws were adopted in 1994, with provisions for updates in 2004 and most recently, in 2011. As in other countries, bioethics laws indirectly refer to certain fundamental values. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, I shall briefly describe the construction of the French bioethics laws and the values they are meant to protect. Secondly, I will show that the practice of clinical ethics, as (...) reported in a few studies on ART, living organ donation and PGD, challenge the role attributed to doctors as “gatekeepers” of those fundamental values. Thirdly, I will suggest that the quality of medical practices would improve if the law focused on strengthening the tacit pact between doctors and patients, rather than putting doctors in charge of enforcing societal values. Doctors, for their part, would limit their role to what they can do best: provide sufficient patient support and safe care. Against those who argue that we should dispense with bioethics laws altogether, I hold that the laws are useful in order to limit the development of abusive practices. However, a new legislative approach should be adopted which would a positive presumption in favor of patients’ requests. (shrink)

The procedures for structuring clinical ethics case reflections in a childhood cancer care setting are presented, including an eight-step model. Four notable characteristics of the procedures are: members of the inter-professional health care team, not external experts, taking a leading role in the reflections; patients or relatives not being directly involved; the model explicitly addressing values and moral principles instead of focussing exclusively on the interests of involved parties; using a case-based (inductive) rather than principle-based (deductive) method. By discusing the (...) advantages and disadvantages of the proposed procedures, our paper aims to contribute to the literature on models and procedures for ethical analysis that can be used in clinical settings. It is suggested that our proposed procedures have some advantageous features when it comes to promoting health care staff’s learning to structure their thinking about ethical issues. (shrink)

Background: In previous research on ethics case reflection (ECR) sessions about specific cases, healthcare professionals in childhood cancer care were clarifying their perspectives on the ethical issue to resolve their main concern of consolidating care. When perspectives were clarified, consequences in the team included ‘increased understanding’, ‘group strengthening’ and ‘decision grounding’. Additional analysis of the data was needed on conditions that could contribute to the quality of ECR sessions. Objective: The aim of this study was to explore conditions for clarifying (...) perspectives during ECR sessions. Research design: Data were collected from observations and interviews and the results emerged from an inductive analysis using grounded theory. Participants and research context: Six observations during ECR sessions and 10 interviews were performed with healthcare professionals working in childhood cancer care and advanced paediatric homecare. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by a regional ethical review board. Participants were informed about their voluntary involvement and that they could withdraw their participation without explaining why. Findings: Two categories emerged: organizational enablers and barriers and team-related enablers and barriers. Organizational enablers and barriers included the following sub-categories: the timing of the ECR session, the structure during the ECR session and the climate during the ECR session. Sub-categories to team-related enablers and barriers were identified as space for inter-professional perspectives, varying levels of ethical skills and space for the patient’s and the family’s perspectives. Discussion: Space for inter-professional perspectives included the dominance of a particular perspective that can result from hierarchical positions. The medical perspective is relevant for understanding the child’s situation but should not dominate the ethical reflection. Conclusion: Conditions for ECR sessions have been explored and the new knowledge can be used when training facilitators as well as for those who organize/implement ECR sessions. Awareness of space for different perspectives, including the possible medical advantage over the nursing perspective, could reduce the somewhat unilateral attention and contribute to an inter-professionally shared reflection. (shrink)

Although clinical ethics consultation has existed for more than 40 years in the USA and Europe, it was not available in Bulgaria until recently. In introducing clinical ethics consultation into our country, the Modular, Ethical, Treatment, Allocation of resources, Process methodology has been preferred because of its potential to be used in resource-poor settings and its strong educational function. This paper presents the results of a METAP evaluation in a hospital palliative care ward in the town of Vratsa. The evaluation (...) was based on Beauchamp and Childress’ four principles of biomedical ethics and involves implementation of specific instruments for clinical ethics decision-making. Research tasks emphasised analyses of ethics meetings in the ward. Data were processed by SPSS v.24 using descriptive statistical analysis. Altogether, 32 ethics meetings of an average duration 20.63 min were conducted on cases involving critically ill patients. Most of the participants expressed satisfaction with the ethics process. The principlist approach supported resolution of conflicts between autonomous patients and their relatives, clarified definitions of “medical benefit” and “social good,” and enabled assessments of the risk of unequal treatment. Even as the specific research tasks were achieved, further participant follow-up is necessary to identify any improvement in healthcare personnel’s ethical competence. METAP worked well in end-of-life care settings. Participants experienced several benefits, including improved team communication, better understanding of patient preferences, and confidence in the correctness of decisions. Despite the significant educational potential of METAP, the need for additional and ongoing ethics training of health professionals should not be underestimated. (shrink)