Although rationing of scarce health-care resources is inevitable in clinical practice, there is still limited and scattered information about how physicians perceive and execute this bedside rationing (BSR) and how it can be performed in an ethically fair way. This review gives a systematic overview on physicians’ perspectives on influences, strategies, and consequences of health-care rationing. Relevant references as identified by systematically screening major electronic databases and manuscript references were synthesized by thematic analysis. Retrieved studies focused on themes that fell (...) under three major headings: (i) conditions and influences of BSR, (ii) strategies of BSR, and (iii) consequences of BSR. The range of themes indicates that physicians’ rationing behavior is highly variable, strongly influenced by context-related factors, and consists mainly of implicit rationing strategies. Torn between patient advocacy and the obligation to contain costs, physicians experience various role conflicts. The development of explicit rationing strategies seems necessary to avoid arbitrary BSR and allow a fair allocation of health-care resources. (shrink)

Background : researchers and sponsors increasingly confront the issue of whether participants in a clinical trial should have post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug. Legislation and guidelines are inconsistent, ambiguous or silent about many aspects of PTA. Recent research highlights the potential importance of systematic reviews (SRs) of reason-based literatures in informing decision-making in medicine, medical research and health policy. Purpose: to systematically review reasons why drug trial participants should, or need not be ensured PTA to the trial drug (...) and the uses of such reasons. Data sources: databases in science/medicine, law and ethics, thesis databases, bibliographies, research ethics books and included publications’ notes/bibliographies. Publication selection: a publication was included if it included a reason as above. See article for detailed inclusion conditions. Data extraction and analysis: two reviewers extracted and analyzed data on publications and reasons. Results: of 2060 publications identified, 75 were included. These mentioned reasons based on morality, legality, interests/incentives, or practicality, comprising 36 broad (235 narrow) types of reason. None of the included publications, which included informal reviews and reports by official bodies, mentioned more than 22 broad (59 narrow) types. For many reasons, publications differed about the reason’s interpretation, implications and/or persuasiveness. Publications differed also regarding costs, feasibility and legality of PTA. Limitations: reason types could be applied differently. The quality of reasons was not measured. Conclusion: this review captured a greater variety of reasons and of their uses than any included publication. Decisions based on informal reviews or sub-sets of literature are likely to be biased. Research is needed on PTA ethics, costs, feasibility and legality and on assessing the quality of reason-based literature. (shrink)

The clinical ethics literature is striking for the absence of an important genre of scholarship that is common to the literature of clinical medicine: systematic reviews. As a consequence, the field of clinical ethics lacks the internal, corrective effect of review articles that are designed to reduce potential bias. This article inaugurates a new section of the annual "Clinical Ethics" issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy on systematic reviews. Using recently articulated standards for argument-based normative ethics, we provide (...) a systematic review of the literature on concealed medication for the management of psychiatric disorders. Four steps are completed: identify a focused question; conduct a literature search using key terms relevant to the focused question; assess the adequacy of the argument-based methods of the papers identified; and identify conclusions drawn in each paper and whether they apply to the focused question. We identified seven papers and provide an assessment of them. While none of the papers fully meet the standards of argument-based ethics, they did provide rationales for the use of concealed medications, with the important requirement such a practice be accountable in explicit organizational policy to prevent abuse of patients with mental illness or dementia. (shrink)

Background: Publications and discussions of survey research in empirical bioethics have steadily increased over the past two decades. However, findings often differ among studies with similar research questions. As a consequence, ethical reasoning that considers only parts of the existing literature and does not apply systematic reviews tends to be biased. To date, we lack a systematic review (SR) methodology that takes into account the specific conceptual and practical challenges of empirical bioethics. Methods: The steps of systematically reviewing empirical findings (...) in bioethics are presented and critically discussed. In particular, (a) the limitations of traditional SR methodologies in the field of empirical bioethics are critically discussed, and (b) conceptual and practical recommendations for SRs in empirical bioethics that are (c) based on the authors’ review experiences in healthcare ethics are presented. Results: A 7-step approach for SRs of empirical bioethics is proposed: (1) careful definition of review question; (2) selection of relevant databases; (3) application of ancillary search strategies; (4) development of search algorithms; (5) relevance assessment of the retrieved references; (6) quality assessment of included studies; and (7) data analysis and presentation. Conceptual and practical challenges arise because of various peculiarities in reviewing empirical bioethics literature and can lead to biased results if they are not taken into account. Conclusions: If suitably adapted to the peculiarities of the field, SRs of empirical bioethics provide transparent information for ethical reasoning and decision-making that is less biased than single studies. (shrink)

Several quantitative surveys have been conducted internationally to gather empirical information about physicians’ general attitudes towards health care rationing. Are physicians ready to accept and implement rationing, or are they rather reluctant? Do they prefer implicit bedside rationing that allows the physician–patient relationship broad leeway in individual decisions? Or do physicians prefer strategies that apply explicit criteria and rules?