Patient Participation in Clinical Ethics Interventions: A Requirement of Procedural and Epistemic Justice.

IF 2.1 2区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-08-14 DOI:10.1111/bioe.70027
Marleen Eijkholt
{"title":"Patient Participation in Clinical Ethics Interventions: A Requirement of Procedural and Epistemic Justice.","authors":"Marleen Eijkholt","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The question whether or not patients ought to be involved in clinical ethics interventions (CEI) remains unresolved. While generally it has been recognized that patients' active participation in health care decisions and processes is important, this is not unequivocally accepted for CEIs. Patient participation in CEI (PP) is common in the United States, but PP seems far from the prevailing practice in Europe. In Europe, CEIs often involve discussions of the ethics issue by the healthcare team only; the patient or proxy is not included, consulted or even informed about such an intervention. In this paper, we submit that policies or standards which resist PP and disable it as an option conflict with procedural and epistemic justice requirements in CEIs. We conceptually develop how the two concepts of procedural justice (PJ) and epistemic justice (EJ) relate to CEIs and to PP. We also engage with four cases to illustrate the risks of injustices and how PP facilitates CEIs to meet justice requirements. We conclude that in settings where CEIs systematically do not involve PP, and where patients are neither asked about the ethics issue nor informed about the intervention, policy and practice presumptions should be adjusted.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70027","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The question whether or not patients ought to be involved in clinical ethics interventions (CEI) remains unresolved. While generally it has been recognized that patients' active participation in health care decisions and processes is important, this is not unequivocally accepted for CEIs. Patient participation in CEI (PP) is common in the United States, but PP seems far from the prevailing practice in Europe. In Europe, CEIs often involve discussions of the ethics issue by the healthcare team only; the patient or proxy is not included, consulted or even informed about such an intervention. In this paper, we submit that policies or standards which resist PP and disable it as an option conflict with procedural and epistemic justice requirements in CEIs. We conceptually develop how the two concepts of procedural justice (PJ) and epistemic justice (EJ) relate to CEIs and to PP. We also engage with four cases to illustrate the risks of injustices and how PP facilitates CEIs to meet justice requirements. We conclude that in settings where CEIs systematically do not involve PP, and where patients are neither asked about the ethics issue nor informed about the intervention, policy and practice presumptions should be adjusted.

患者参与临床伦理干预:程序正义与认知正义的要求。
患者是否应该参与临床伦理干预(CEI)的问题仍然没有解决。虽然人们普遍认识到患者积极参与医疗保健决策和过程是重要的,但对于cei来说,这一点并没有得到明确的接受。患者参与CEI (PP)在美国很常见,但PP似乎远未在欧洲盛行。在欧洲,cei通常只涉及医疗团队对道德问题的讨论;患者或代理人不包括在内,咨询,甚至告知这种干预。在本文中,我们提出了抵制PP和禁用PP作为一种选择的政策或标准与cei的程序和认知正义要求相冲突。我们从概念上发展了程序正义(PJ)和认知正义(EJ)这两个概念与cei和PP之间的关系。我们还通过四个案例来说明不公正的风险,以及PP如何促进cei满足正义要求。我们的结论是,在cei系统地不涉及PP的情况下,在患者既没有被问及伦理问题也没有被告知干预措施的情况下,应该调整政策和实践假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bioethics
Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
9.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: As medical technology continues to develop, the subject of bioethics has an ever increasing practical relevance for all those working in philosophy, medicine, law, sociology, public policy, education and related fields. Bioethics provides a forum for well-argued articles on the ethical questions raised by current issues such as: international collaborative clinical research in developing countries; public health; infectious disease; AIDS; managed care; genomics and stem cell research. These questions are considered in relation to concrete ethical, legal and policy problems, or in terms of the fundamental concepts, principles and theories used in discussions of such problems. Bioethics also features regular Background Briefings on important current debates in the field. These feature articles provide excellent material for bioethics scholars, teachers and students alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信