Background In 2021, federal rules from the 21st Century Cures Act mandated most clinical notes be made available in real-time, online, and free of charge to patients, a practice often referred to as “open notes.” This legislation was passed to support medical information transparency and reinforce trust in the clinician-patient relationship; however, it created additional complexities in that relationship and raises questions of what should be included in notes intended to be read by both clinicians and patients. Main Body Even (...) prior to open notes, how an ethics consultant should document a clinical ethics consultation was widely debated as there can be competing interests, differing moral values, and disagreement about pertinent medical information in any given encounter. Patients can now access documentation of these discussions through online portals which broach sensitive topics related to end-of-life care, autonomy, religious/cultural conflict, veracity, confidentiality, and many others. Clinical ethics consultation notes must be ethically robust, accurate, and helpful for healthcare workers and ethics committee members, but now also sensitive to the needs of patients and family members who can read them in real-time. Conclusion We explore implications of open notes for ethics consultation, review clinical ethics consultation documentation styles, and offer recommendations for documentation in this new era. (shrink)

This paper challenges the leading common morality accounts of medical ethics which hold that medical ethics is nothing but the ethics of everyday life applied to today’s high-tech medicine. Using illustrative examples, the paper shows that neither the Beauchamp and Childress four-principle account of medical ethics nor the Gertet al10-rule version is an adequate and appropriate guide for physicians’ actions. By demonstrating that medical ethics is distinctly different from the ethics of everyday life and cannot be derived from it, the (...) paper argues that medical professionals need a touchstone other than common morality for guiding their professional decisions. That conclusion implies that a new theory of medical ethics is needed to replace common morality as the standard for understanding how medical professionals should behave and what medical professionalism entails. En route to making this argument, the paper addresses fundamental issues that require clarification: what is a profession? how is a profession different from a role? how is medical ethics related to medical professionalism? The paper concludes with a preliminary sketch for a theory of medical ethics. (shrink)

Short-term humanitarian medical volunteerism has grown significantly among both clinicians and trainees over the past several years. Increasingly, both volunteers and their respective institutions have faced important challenges in regard to medical ethics and professional codes that should not be overlooked. We explore these potential concerns and their risk factors in three categories: ethical responsibilities in patient care, professional responsibility to communities and populations, and institutional responsibilities towards trainees. We discuss factors increasing the risk of harm to patients and communities, (...) including inadequate preparation, the use of advanced technology and the translation of Western medicine, issues with clinical epidemiology and test utility, difficulties with the principles of justice and clinical justice, the lack of population-based medicine, sociopolitical effects of foreign aid, volunteer stress management, and need for sufficient trainee supervision. We review existing resources and offer suggestions for future skill-based training, organisational responsibilities, and ethical preparation. (shrink)