Journal of Clinical Ethics最新文献_第9页

Simulation-Based Ethics Education: Building Confidence and Competence in Nursing Students. 基于模拟的伦理学教育：建立护生的信心和能力。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/736150

Rajeev R Dutta, Julia Hunter, Elizabeth Vega-Belluscio

{"title":"Simulation-Based Ethics Education: Building Confidence and Competence in Nursing Students.","authors":"Rajeev R Dutta, Julia Hunter, Elizabeth Vega-Belluscio","doi":"10.1086/736150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/736150","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractBackground: We combined simulation-based learning and ethics education for a unique, educational experience for nursing students. We aimed to assess students' feelings of confidence, efficacy, and moral distress before and after a simulation session focused primarily on handling an ethical dilemma.Methods: A simulation session featuring an ethical dilemma was enacted as an in-class activity for a nursing ethics course. Optional pre- and post-surveys were made available to nursing students (<math><mrow><mi>n</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>13</mn></mrow></math>) to collect both quantitative (five-point Likert) and qualitative data, including a modified version of the Measure of Moral Distress-Healthcare Professionals tool.Results: Students reported significantly increased levels of confidence in handling real-life ethical dilemmas, knowledge of working with a physician in real-life ethical dilemmas, and competence in selecting appropriate actions in ethical dilemmas. Overall moral distress was not found to be significantly increased in participants.Conclusions: Nursing students describe ethics simulation as a valuable, innovative tool for preparing them to handle eventual ethical challenges in their career and anticipating moral distress.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 3","pages":"251-262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144822823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Patients' Participation in Clinical Ethics: A Vicarious Voice. 患者参与临床伦理：一种替代的声音。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/733395

Kristina Orfali

{"title":"Patients' Participation in Clinical Ethics: A Vicarious Voice.","authors":"Kristina Orfali","doi":"10.1086/733395","DOIUrl":"10.1086/733395","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractDespite the prevailing norm of patient autonomy, a patient's direct participation in clinical ethics remains quite infrequent given that most often the patient is incapacitated. Often, clinical ethics consultants deal with someone representing the patient-either family members or a legal surrogate (DPA) who has decision-making authority. This stands in sharp contrast to most European countries, where an incapacitated patient typically falls under medical jurisdiction. Despite recent legal trends in Europe recognizing the role of advance directives and the possibility of a surrogate representing the patient (such as a \"trusted person\"), these persons are only \"consulted\" by the healthcare team; most often, they have no decision-making authority. This article explores these contrasting cultural differences regarding who (a legally recognized surrogate in the United States vs. mostly the physician in Europe) has the legitimacy to speak on behalf of the incapacitated patient who can no longer voice his/her preferences. Surrogates (often families) are in the United States given a voice for their incapacitated loved one because they are often those bearing the burden of any decisions; in many European countries, however, society (the state) at large will bear much of such cost. By looking into the broader contrasting framework of autonomy-focused bioethics, such as in the United States, versus public health ethics, which entails commitment to the common good before the individual, much of the differences of patients' role in clinical ethics and even the format of clinical ethics support services here and abroad can be better understood.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 1","pages":"16-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143392146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The (In)Capacity to Exclude: The Normative Value of Preferences in Surrogate Exclusion. 排除能力：替代排除中偏好的规范价值。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/734766

Megan Kitts, Joanna Smolenski

{"title":"The (In)Capacity to Exclude: The Normative Value of Preferences in Surrogate Exclusion.","authors":"Megan Kitts, Joanna Smolenski","doi":"10.1086/734766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/734766","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractWhen patients are unable to make decisions for themselves, medical teams often turn to surrogate decision makers to help identify what the patient would have wanted. Unless a patient has designated a surrogate, teams must rely on statutory hierarchies that often prioritize legal and biological ties. When cases arise in which patients do not want their legal surrogate to be their medical decision maker, they must take steps to exclude that person. Unfortunately, people often are not aware of this until they are unable to make complex medical decisions for themselves. While much has been said about the capacity to appoint surrogates, comparatively little has been said about excluding surrogates. In current practice, a patient's decision to exclude a surrogate would not be respected when they do not have capacity. It is our view that this blanket inclusion of surrogates can be seriously harmful and potentially violating. Our goals in this article are twofold. First, we aim to carve out the decision to exclude a surrogate as distinct from the decision to appoint one. Second, we argue that respecting an incapacitated patient's exclusion to some degree is morally appropriate. We will conclude by offering suggestions about how to respect the preference to exclude while considering the risks that may come with exclusion.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 2","pages":"112-120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144121141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Not How, But If: Determining the Need for Formal Capacity Evaluation. 不是如何，而是如果：确定正式能力评估的需要。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/736143

Jacob M Appel

引用次数: 0

Reproductive Autonomy and Insurer Denials of Care: The Fine Line Between Oversight and Interference. 生殖自主权和保险公司拒绝照顾：监督和干预之间的细线。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/736147

Lacey C Brennan, Aimee Milliken, Louise P King

{"title":"Reproductive Autonomy and Insurer Denials of Care: The Fine Line Between Oversight and Interference.","authors":"Lacey C Brennan, Aimee Milliken, Louise P King","doi":"10.1086/736147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/736147","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractReproductive autonomy is a fundamental ethical principle in healthcare, yet insurance denials of care often undermine patient decision-making. This article examines a case in which a 35-year-old patient with stage 4 endometriosis sought a total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to manage severe, refractory pelvic pain. Despite the patient's informed and autonomous decision, her insurer denied authorization based on a paternalistic concern for her future fertility. Through an ethical analysis, this article critiques the role of insurers in reproductive decision-making, highlighting the inherent conflict of interest, lack of clinical nuance, and burdens imposed on clinicians. The disproportionate scrutiny of sterilization procedures, rooted in a history of reproductive injustice, further complicates the ethical landscape. To address these challenges, we propose integrating interinstitutional ethics consultations into prior authorization processes, ensuring that patient autonomy is respected while maintaining oversight for medical necessity. This case underscores the need to balance oversight with respect for reproductive autonomy to optimize patient care and equitable access to necessary procedures.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 3","pages":"268-271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144822822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Defining and Refining Trauma-Informed Ethics Consultation. 定义和完善创伤知情伦理咨询。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/733391

Elizabeth Lanphier, Uchenna E Anani

{"title":"Defining and Refining Trauma-Informed Ethics Consultation.","authors":"Elizabeth Lanphier, Uchenna E Anani","doi":"10.1086/733391","DOIUrl":"10.1086/733391","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis article responds to Autumn Fiester's \"TIEC, Trauma Capacity, and the Moral Priority of Surrogate Decision Makers in Futility Disputes,\" in which Fiester argues for a vision of trauma-informed ethics consultation that systematically prioritizes the preferences of surrogate decision makers in cases of disagreement between surrogates and clinical teams over continued life-sustaining therapies for severely neurologically impaired patients. We identify three issues arising from Fiester's article that allow us to clarify our account of trauma-informed ethics consultation on which she builds and that illustrate the need for further research on trauma-informed ethics consultation in both theory and practice. The first issue responds to her charge that ours was an overly \"modest\" proposal. The second issue is to suggest closer attention to distinctions between ethics consultation process, methods, and content that we argue would enhance Fiester's account. The third is to better evaluate the appropriate role of \"ethically acceptable options\" in trauma-informed ethics consultation. In conclusion, we raise several global points regarding the further development of trauma-informed ethics consultation and conceptualizations of trauma-informed care relevant to it.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 1","pages":"52-57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143392143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Principle of Double Effect and Organ Donors with Hepatitis C. 双重效应原理与丙型肝炎器官捐献者。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/736140

Jerod Crockett, Caroline A Buchanan

引用次数: 0

Response to Morreim, "A Deeper Look at Ethics Consultation". 回应Morreim的“道德咨询的更深层次看”。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/733388

Autumn Fiester

引用次数: 0

Beyond the Hospital Walls: The Role of the Ethicist in Community Healthcare Settings. 超越医院围墙：伦理学家在社区医疗机构中的作用。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/730876

Bryanna Moore

{"title":"Beyond the Hospital Walls: The Role of the Ethicist in Community Healthcare Settings.","authors":"Bryanna Moore","doi":"10.1086/730876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/730876","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractCommunity-based \"free\" clinics can be a key site of primary and preventive care, especially for underserved members of the community. Ethical issues arise in community clinics. Despite this-and the fact that ethics consultation is a well-established practice within hospitals-ethics support is rarely integrated within community clinics, and the clinical ethicist's role in community care settings remains unexplored. In this article I explore what community-engaged practice might look like for the clinical ethicist. I share my experience of being invited into a local community clinic where a team of volunteers, in partnership with a local church, provide care to persons experiencing housing and food security in our county. First, I outline some of the key ethical issues we encounter in our clinic, including how to promote the agency of community members, develop shared standards for clinic volunteers, and balance different values and priorities within the partnership. Second, I explore how the ethicist's knowledge and skills translate into this setting. I argue that, given the range of ethical issues that arise in community clinics and the need for ongoing dialogue, education, and critical reflection within such partnerships, there is a role for the clinical ethicist in this space. I discuss how clinical ethicists might begin to develop community-based partnerships and practices.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"35 3","pages":"208-216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141983565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Patient Consent for Medical Student Pelvic Exams under Anesthesia: An Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review. 医学生在麻醉状态下进行骨盆检查时的患者同意书：探索性回顾病历。

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI: 10.1086/729416

Jessica A Jushchyshyn, Lakeisha Mulugeta-Gordon, Cara Curley, Florencia Greer Polite, Jon F Merz

{"title":"Patient Consent for Medical Student Pelvic Exams under Anesthesia: An Exploratory Retrospective Chart Review.","authors":"Jessica A Jushchyshyn, Lakeisha Mulugeta-Gordon, Cara Curley, Florencia Greer Polite, Jon F Merz","doi":"10.1086/729416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/729416","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractObjective: We performed this study to examine patients' choices to permit or refuse medical student pelvic examinations under anesthesia (EUAs) during planned gynecologic procedures.Design: We conducted an exploratory retrospective chart review of electronic consent forms at a single academic medical center using contingency tables, logistic regression, and nonparametric tests to explore relationships between patient and physician characteristics and consent.Results: We identified and downloaded electronic consent forms for a census of 4,000 patients undergoing gynecologic surgery from September 2020 through calendar year 2022. Forms were linked to anonymized medical record information. Of the 4,000 patients, 142 (3.6%) were removed from analysis because consent forms were incomplete. Of 3,858 patients, 308 (8.0%) were asked for EUA consent more than once, 46 of whom were not consistent. Overall, 3,308 (85.7%) patients consented every time asked, and 550 (14.2%) refused or limited EUA consent at least once. Nine patients limited their consent to female students, and two patients refused medical student participation at all. We performed exploratory multiple logistic regression analyses exploring differences in rates of consent across patient and physician demographic groups.Conclusions: We find that some patients are more likely than others to refuse a pelvic EUA, magnifying the dignitary harm from a nonconsensual invasion of intimate bodily integrity and perpetuating historic wrongs visited upon vulnerable people of color and religious minorities. Patients' rights to respect and control over their bodies require that physicians take seriously the ethical obligation to inform their patients and ask them for permission.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"35 2","pages":"93-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140904883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0