Paragraph 12 of the revised International Code of Medical Ethics (ICoME) states that ‘the physician should strive to practise medicine in ways that are environmentally sustainable with a view to minimising environmental health risks to current and future generations.’1 This emphasis on environmental sustainability is in line with popular discourse as well growing scholarly attention in medical ethics for healthcare’s contribution to climate change. Recent research analyses, for instance, the ‘greening’ of informed consent and related bioethical principles.2 3 It is (...) unclear what the duty of practising sustainable healthcare means at the level of doctor–patient interaction. Parsa-Parsi et al flag the potential conflict in the ICoME’s provisions if ‘the actions of physicians are influenced by environmental considerations to the detriment of patients’ (p. 2), noting that the ICoME does not provide a handhold to improve understanding of such tensions. The code ‘does not go into extensive detail, does not include comprehensive explanations nor any rules or guidance on how to reconcile its principles when they conflict’ (p. 4). For Parsa-Parsi et al, not codes, but textbooks have a crucial role to play in resolving this conflict. It is rife that professional codes can lead to internal inconsistencies and …. (shrink)

Green bioethics is an area of research and scholarship that examines the impact of healthcare practices and policies on the environment and emphasises environmental values, such as ecological sustainability and stewardship. Some green bioethicists have argued that healthcare providers should inform patients about the environmental impacts of treatments and advocate for options that minimise adverse impacts. While disclosure of information pertaining to the environmental impacts of treatments could facilitate autonomous decision-making and strengthen the patient–provider relationship in situations where patients have (...) clearly expressed environmental concerns, it may have the opposite effect in other situations if makes patients feel like they are being judged or manipulated. We argue, therefore, that there is not a generalisable duty to disclose environmental impact information to all patients during the consent process. Providers who practice green bioethics should focus on advocating for system-level changes in healthcare financing, organisation and delivery and use discretion when bringing up environmental concerns in their encounters with patients. (shrink)

The medical profession is observing a rising number of calls to action considering the threat that climate change poses to global human health. Theory-led bioethical analyses of the scope and weight of physicians’ normative duty towards climate protection and its conflict with individual patient care are currently scarce. This article offers an analysis of the normative issues at stake by using Korsgaard’s neo-Kantian moral account of practical identities. We begin by showing the case of physicians’ duty to climate protection, before (...) we succinctly introduce Korsgaard’s account. We subsequently show how the duty to climate protection can follow from physicians’ identity of being a healthcare professional. We structure conflicts between individual patient care and climate protection, and show how a transformation in physicians’ professional ethos is possible and what mechanisms could be used for doing so. An important limit of our analysis is that we mainly address the level of individual physicians and their practical identities, leaving out important measures to respond to climate change at the mesolevels and macrolevels of healthcare institutions and systems, respectively. (shrink)

In their article, van Gils Schmidt and Salloch defend the claim that physicians have a duty to protect the climate. The logic of the argument in broad terms is that (i) there is a relationship between climate change and the burden of disease, (ii) the healthcare sector is a significant emitter of global greenhouse gasses, thereby enhancing the burden of disease and (iii) since doctors are advocates of health and stakeholders in the healthcare sector, they have a duty to respond (...) to climate change. The authors recognise the ‘ethical basis for the claim of healthcare professionals having a special responsibility in climate change is far from being obvious’. The theoretical framework they choose for making this tentative link more apparent is Korsgaard’s theory of practical identities. The main argument of the authors seems to be that practical identities are pluralistic—a person can identify as a physician and environmentalist simultaneously—and the normative positions attributable to these identities may come into conflict. More than that, they claim that being an environmentalist is increasingly becoming …. (shrink)

The carbon emissions of global healthcare activities make up 4%–5% of total world emissions, with the majority coming from industrialised countries. The solution to healthcare carbon reduction in these countries, ostensibly, would be preventive healthcare, which is less resource intensive than corrective healthcare in itself and, as a double benefit, reduces carbon by preventing diseases which may require higher healthcare carbon to treat. This leads to a paradox: preventive healthcare is designed to give humans longer, healthier lives. But, by extending (...) life spans, the carbon emissions of a person increase both over a lifetime and in the medical industry overall. At the same time, the need for higher carbon end-of-life care does not disappear, particularly in resource intensive countries. This article will first identify sources of healthcare carbon, focusing on the industrialised world, and explain various efforts towards healthcare carbon reduction, which include preventive healthcare. Second, it will develop the ‘paradox of prevention’—that preventive healthcare may save healthcare carbon by proximally reducing the need for medical treatments, but also, paradoxically, result in more healthcare carbon both in an individual’s life and in the medical industry. The third section will offer ethical principles for approaching the paradox of prevention. The conclusion will emphasise the need for institutional approaches to healthcare carbon reduction in the industrialised world, which will relieve some of the tensions of healthcare industry decarbonisation and individual healthcare carbon use. (shrink)

An anthropocentric scope for clinical medical ethics (CME) has largely separated this area of bioethics from environmental concerns. In this article, we first identify and reconcile the ethical issues imposed on CME by climate change including the dispersion of related causes and effects, the transdisciplinary and transhuman nature of climate change, and the historic divorce of CME from the environment. We then establish how several moral theories undergirding modern CME, such as virtue ethics, feminist ethics, and several theories of justice, (...) promote both a flourishing of human medical practice and the environment. We conclude by defining an expanded the scope of CME as inclusive of not only patients, families, physicians, and other health professionals but other humans, non-humans, and their shared environment. We then apply this scope and theory to a widely used framework for applying CME, the Four Topics model, to construct a climate conscious approach to CME. (shrink)