Background: Ethical and legal issues are increasingly being reported by health caregivers; however, little is known about the nature of these issues in geriatric care. These issues can improve work and care conditions in healthcare, and consequently, the health and welfare of older people. Aim: This literature review aims to identify research focusing on ethical and legal issues in geriatric care, in order to give nurses and other health care workers an overview of existing grievances and possible solutions to take (...) care of old patients in a both ethical and legally correct way. Methods: Using a systematic approach based on Aveyard, a search of the PubMed, CINAHL, and Ethicshare databases was conducted to find out the articles published on ethical and legal issues in geriatric care. Ethical considerations: The approval for the study was obtained from UMIT-The Health and Life Sciences University, Austria. Results: Only 50 articles were included for systematic analysis reporting ethical and legal issues in the geriatric care. The results presented in this article showed that the main ethical issues were related to the older people’s autonomy, respect for their needs, wishes and values, and respect for their decision-making. The main legal issues were related to patients’ rights, advance directives, elderly rights, treatment nutrition dilemma, and autonomy. Conclusion: Further education for professional caregivers, elderly people, and their families is needed on following topics: care planning, directive and living wills, and caregiver-family member relationships to guide and support the elderly people within their decision-making processes and during the end-of-life care. (shrink)

People in extraordinary situations are vulnerable. As research participants, they are additionally threatened by abuse or exploitation and the possibility of harm through research. To protect people against these threats, informed consent as an instrument of self-determination has been introduced. Self-determination requires autonomous persons, who voluntarily make decisions based on their values and morals. However, in nursing research, this requirement cannot always be met. Advanced age, chronic illness, co-morbidity and frailty are reasons for dependencies. These in turn lead to limited (...) abilities or opportunities for decision-making and self-determination. Exclusion of vulnerable people from research projects would disadvantage them by not covering their needs, which would violate the ethical principles of justice and beneficence. Commonly, vulnerability is attributed to social groups. The consequence for individuals, attributed as belonging to such a vulnerable group, is that the principles of respect for autonomy, justice and beneficence are subordinated to the principle of non-maleficence, understood as avoiding the risk to cause more harm than good. In addition, group-specific attribution could lead to stigmatizing because labelling a person as deviation from a norm violates integrity. For clinical nursing research, the question arises how the protection of vulnerable people could be granted without compromising ethical principles. The concept of relational ethics provides a possible approach. It defines vulnerability as the relation between a person’s health status and the extent to which this person is dependent on the researcher and the research context. Vulnerability is not attributed solely to a person but to a situation, meaning the person is viewed in context. By combining vulnerability as a context-related and situational concept with existing approaches of informed consent, the different ethical principles can be balanced and preserved at every step of the research process. (shrink)

Background: Research concerning relatives’ participation in the everyday care related to persons living in special care units for persons with dementia is limited. Research questions: To examine relatives’ participation in their near one’s everyday care, the level of burden experienced and important factors for participation, in this special context. Design: The study had a cross-sectional design, and data collection was carried out by means of a study-specific questionnaire. Participants and context: A total of 233 relatives from 23 different special care (...) units participated. Ethical consideration: The study was approved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. Results: A great majority of relatives reported that they visited weekly and were the resident’s spokesperson, but seldom really participated in decisions concerning their everyday care. Participation was seldom reported as a burden. Discussion: This study indicated that relatives were able to make a difference to their near one’s everyday life and ensure quality of care based on their biographical expertise, intimate knowledge about and emotional bond with the resident. Since knowing the resident is a prerequisite for providing individualised care that is in line with the resident’s preferences, information concerning these issues is of utmost importance. Conclusion: This study prompts reflection about what it is to be a spokesperson and whether everyday care is neglected in this role. Even though relatives were satisfied with the care provided, half of them perceived their participation as crucial for the resident’s well-being. This indicated that relatives were able to offer important extras due to their biographical expertise, intimate knowledge about and emotional bond with the resident. Good routines securing that written information about the residents’ life history and preferences is available and used should be implemented in practice. (shrink)