Commentary on Patient Participation in Clinical Ethics Support Deliberation: Perspectives from Parents and Clinicians in a Children's Hospital.

Q3 Medicine
Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2026-01-01 Epub Date: 2026-08-12 DOI:10.1086/741881
Mariana Dittborn, Sarah Aylett, Joe Brierley
{"title":"Commentary on Patient Participation in Clinical Ethics Support Deliberation: Perspectives from Parents and Clinicians in a Children's Hospital.","authors":"Mariana Dittborn, Sarah Aylett, Joe Brierley","doi":"10.1086/741881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>AbstractWhether and how patients should participate in clinical ethics discussions is an important contemporary debate. Murdoch recently reported clinicians' and ethics service members' views from England and the United States on patient participation in ethics consultation. In response to the call for further understanding, we report parents' and clinicians' experiences of active parental and child involvement in ethics case reviews (ECRs), including the then-novel use of videoconference ECRs during the pandemic in a UK tertiary children's hospital. Between January 2018 and May 2023, parents attended 59 of 85 hospital ECRs and provided positive anecdotal feedback. To better understand their perspectives, we interviewed three families (two couples and one single parent) and four clinicians involved in ECRs, conducted via videoconference because of pandemic restrictions, between March and December 2020. All reviews concerned proposals for innovative COVID-19 therapies. Reflexive thematic analysis identified six themes: (1) parental presence at ECRs is essential; (2) preparation is vital; (3) ECRs support complex decision-making; (4) videoconferencing worked well, although choice of format is important; (5) ECRs offer wider benefits; (6) the ECR process was generally smooth but could still be improved. Although this evaluation focused on videoconference ECRs during the pandemic, the findings remain relevant to current debates. Unlike Murdoch, we found that both parents and clinicians highly valued ECR and supported active participation by parents and, where possible, children and young people. However, we agree that clear guidance is needed to support patients' involvement in ethics processes, including preparation and support that promote inclusive, effective reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"37 3","pages":"283-293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/741881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

AbstractWhether and how patients should participate in clinical ethics discussions is an important contemporary debate. Murdoch recently reported clinicians' and ethics service members' views from England and the United States on patient participation in ethics consultation. In response to the call for further understanding, we report parents' and clinicians' experiences of active parental and child involvement in ethics case reviews (ECRs), including the then-novel use of videoconference ECRs during the pandemic in a UK tertiary children's hospital. Between January 2018 and May 2023, parents attended 59 of 85 hospital ECRs and provided positive anecdotal feedback. To better understand their perspectives, we interviewed three families (two couples and one single parent) and four clinicians involved in ECRs, conducted via videoconference because of pandemic restrictions, between March and December 2020. All reviews concerned proposals for innovative COVID-19 therapies. Reflexive thematic analysis identified six themes: (1) parental presence at ECRs is essential; (2) preparation is vital; (3) ECRs support complex decision-making; (4) videoconferencing worked well, although choice of format is important; (5) ECRs offer wider benefits; (6) the ECR process was generally smooth but could still be improved. Although this evaluation focused on videoconference ECRs during the pandemic, the findings remain relevant to current debates. Unlike Murdoch, we found that both parents and clinicians highly valued ECR and supported active participation by parents and, where possible, children and young people. However, we agree that clear guidance is needed to support patients' involvement in ethics processes, including preparation and support that promote inclusive, effective reviews.

临床伦理支持审议中患者参与的评论:来自儿童医院家长和临床医生的观点。
摘要患者是否以及如何参与临床伦理讨论是当代一个重要的争论。默多克最近报道了来自英国和美国的临床医生和伦理服务人员对患者参与伦理咨询的看法。为了响应进一步理解的呼吁,我们报告了父母和临床医生在父母和儿童积极参与伦理案例审查(ecr)方面的经验,包括在英国一家三级儿童医院大流行期间视频会议ecr的新使用。在2018年1月至2023年5月期间,家长参加了85家医院急诊室中的59家,并提供了积极的轶事反馈。为了更好地了解他们的观点,我们在2020年3月至12月期间通过视频会议采访了参与ecr的三个家庭(两对夫妇和一位单亲)和四名临床医生。所有综述均涉及COVID-19创新疗法的建议。反身性主题分析确定了六个主题:(1)家长在幼儿园的存在至关重要;(2)准备工作至关重要;(3) ecr支持复杂决策;(4)视频会议运行良好,尽管格式的选择很重要;(5) ecr提供更广泛的利益;(6) ECR流程总体平稳,但仍有改进空间。虽然这次评估侧重于大流行期间的视频会议ECRs,但其结果仍然与当前的辩论相关。与Murdoch不同的是,我们发现父母和临床医生都高度重视ECR,并支持父母以及可能的儿童和年轻人的积极参与。然而,我们同意需要明确的指导来支持患者参与伦理过程,包括准备和支持促进包容、有效的审查。
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
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
×
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
小红书