Journal of Medical Ethics最新文献_第10页

Critical dialogue method of ethics consultation: making clinical ethics facilitation visible and accessible. 伦理咨询的批判性对话方法：让临床伦理促进工作变得可见和可及。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-109927

Clare Delany, Sharon Feldman, Barbara Kameniar, Lynn Gillam

{"title":"Critical dialogue method of ethics consultation: making clinical ethics facilitation visible and accessible.","authors":"Clare Delany, Sharon Feldman, Barbara Kameniar, Lynn Gillam","doi":"10.1136/jme-2024-109927","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2024-109927","url":null,"abstract":"In clinical ethics consultations, clinical ethicists bring moral reasoning to bear on concrete and complex clinical ethical problems by undertaking ethical deliberation in collaboration with others. The reasoning process involves identifying and clarifying ethical values which are at stake or contested, and guiding clinicians, and sometimes patients and families, to think through ethically justifiable and available courses of action in clinical situations. There is, however, ongoing discussion about the various methods ethicists use to do this ethical deliberation work. In this paper, we make visible and accessible seven steps of facilitation used in the critical dialogue method of ethics consultation.We describe how the facilitation techniques serve two overall purposes. First, to identify ethically justified responses to ethical questions. Second, to assist participants to gain greater moral clarity, understanding and confidence to respond to ethical challenges as independent moral agents.By describing in detail facilitation steps for clinical ethics consultation, we aim to advance the scholarship of 'clinical ethics facilitation methods' and to demystify the ethical deliberation work undertaken by clinical ethicists.","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"10-16"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141558957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Going high and low: on pluralism and neutrality in human embryology policy-making. 忽高忽低：人类胚胎学决策的多元化和中立性。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108515

Hafez Ismaili M'hamdi, Nicolas C Rivron, Eva Ca Asscher

引用次数: 0

The Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board: Does it condone healthcare injustice? 最高法院在McCulloch诉Forth Valley Health Board一案中的裁决：它是否宽恕了医疗不公正？

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2023-109510

Abeezar I Sarela

{"title":"The Supreme Court's decision in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board: Does it condone healthcare injustice?","authors":"Abeezar I Sarela","doi":"10.1136/jme-2023-109510","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2023-109510","url":null,"abstract":"The UK Supreme Court's recent judgement in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board clarifies the standard for the identification of 'reasonable' alternative medical treatments. The required standard is that of a reasonable doctor: treatments that would be accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion. Accordingly, the assessment of consent involves a two-stage test: first, a 'reasonable doctor' test for identifying alternative treatments; followed by a 'reasonable person in the patient's position' test for identifying the material risks of these reasonable alternative treatments. The separation of consent into two stages is consistent with not only a certain conception of freedom but also a nuanced construct of respect for autonomy that has a normative base. Furthermore, reliance on a reasonable doctor in the first stage is in keeping with a sociological account of medical professionalism, which posits that only doctors, and none others, can determine what is a proper treatment. Yet, reliance on a reasonable doctor permits a plurality of standards for reasonableness, because differences in opinion among doctors are pervasive. The reasons for some differences might be acceptable as unavoidable imperfections in medical decision-making to a reasonable person. But reasons for other differences might be objectionable; and the resultant inequalities in medical treatments would be considered unfair. One solution is to make the plurality of reasonable alternatives available to the patient, but this would introduce practical uncertainty and it is rejected by the Court. The Court's approach may be pragmatic; however, it seems to allow avoidable injustice in healthcare.","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"806-810"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49678421","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Artificial intelligence risks, attention allocation and priorities. 人工智能风险、注意力分配和优先事项。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110279

Aorigele Bao, Yi Zeng

引用次数: 0

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2022-108812

Mike McNamee, Lynley C Anderson, Pascal Borry, Silvia Camporesi, Wayne Derman, Soren Holm, Taryn Rebecca Knox, Bert Leuridan, Sigmund Loland, Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Ludovica Lorusso, Dominic Malcolm, David McArdle, Brad Partridge, Thomas Schramme, Mike Weed

{"title":"Sport-related concussion research agenda beyond medical science: culture, ethics, science, policy.","authors":"Mike McNamee, Lynley C Anderson, Pascal Borry, Silvia Camporesi, Wayne Derman, Soren Holm, Taryn Rebecca Knox, Bert Leuridan, Sigmund Loland, Francisco Javier Lopez Frias, Ludovica Lorusso, Dominic Malcolm, David McArdle, Brad Partridge, Thomas Schramme, Mike Weed","doi":"10.1136/jme-2022-108812","DOIUrl":"10.1136/jme-2022-108812","url":null,"abstract":"The Concussion in Sport Group guidelines have successfully brought the attention of brain injuries to the global medical and sport research communities, and has significantly impacted brain injury-related practices and rules of international sport. Despite being the global repository of state-of-the-art science, diagnostic tools and guides to clinical practice, the ensuing consensus statements remain the object of ethical and sociocultural criticism. The purpose of this paper is to bring to bear a broad range of multidisciplinary challenges to the processes and products of sport-related concussion movement. We identify lacunae in scientific research and clinical guidance in relation to age, disability, gender and race. We also identify, through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary analysis, a range of ethical problems resulting from conflicts of interest, processes of attributing expertise in sport-related concussion, unjustifiably narrow methodological control and insufficient athlete engagement in research and policy development. We argue that the sport and exercise medicine community need to augment the existing research and practice foci to understand these problems more holistically and, in turn, provide guidance and recommendations that help sport clinicians better care for brain-injured athletes.","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"68-76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2024-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10824394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Existential risk and the justice turn in bioethics. 生命伦理学中的生存风险与正义转向。

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-110282

Paolo Corsico

引用次数: 0

Failing to deliver: why pregnancy is not a disease. 分娩失败：为什么怀孕不是一种疾病？

IF 3.3 2区哲学

Journal of Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-12-23 DOI: 10.1136/jme-2024-109956

Paul Rezkalla, Emmanuel Smith

引用次数: 0

Pregnant women are often not listened to, but pathologising pregnancy isn't the solution. 孕妇往往得不到倾听，但将怀孕病理化并不是解决办法。