BioethicsPub Date : 2024-10-26DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13357
Aleksy Tarasenko-Struc
{"title":"Purely performative resuscitation: Treating the patient as an object.","authors":"Aleksy Tarasenko-Struc","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13357","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite its prevalence today, the practice of purely performative resuscitation (PPR)-paradigmatically, the \"slow code\"-has attracted more critics in bioethics than defenders. The most common criticism of the slow code is that it's fundamentally deceptive or harmful, while the most common justification offered is that it may benefit the patient's loved ones, by symbolically honoring the patient or the care team's relationship with the family. I argue that critics and defenders of the slow code each have a point. Advocates of the slow code are right that not all PPR is wrongly deceptive or harmful to the patient or his family and that the symbolic aspect of medicine is itself morally significant. But the critics are also correct: slow codes are prima facie wrong. I argue that pursuing a slow code amounts to treating the patient as a tool for others' benefit-hence, treating him as an object-and that this instrumentalizing quality constitutes one core prima facie wrong of the practice. I also build a case for the idea that the slow code may not always be all-things-considered wrong, specifying certain limited conditions under which acts of PPR might ultimately be permissible. Thus, the symbolic dimension of medical treatment is indeed morally important, both in morally favorable and in morally problematic respects-namely, in its symbolic denial of the patient's humanity.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142513411","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}
BioethicsPub Date : 2024-10-23DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13367
Robert Baker
{"title":"Show and slow codes: A historical analysis of clinicians' adaptations to ethical overreach.","authors":"Robert Baker","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13367","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>After briefly reviewing the historical development and ethical regulation of resuscitative technologies, this study probes why clinicians engage in the morally problematic practice of show and slow coding and why hospitals tolerate it? Studies conducted in 1995 and 2020 indicate that conscientious clinicians engage in these practices to protect their patients from abusive or futile resuscitation. And hospitals' clinical cultures tolerate these practices to protect conscientious clinicians from censure, dismissal, delicensing, or legal prosecution for withholding or withdrawing abusive or futile resuscitative technologies without prior patient or surrogate consent. Show and slow coding evolved in American clinical cultures in the second half of the 20th century when closed-chest cardiac massage, defibrillators, ventilators, and other resuscitative technologies raised seemingly novel ethical questions. To address these questions, bioethics commissions, healthcare societies, lawmakers, and a Roman Catholic Pope developed ethics standards requiring clinicians to obtain patient or surrogate consent before withholding or withdrawing resuscitative technologies. They thus conferred on patients an implicit right of resuscitation even if it was abusive and/or futile. Conscientious clinicians circumvented this implicit right by show and slow coding to protect patients from abusive resuscitation. Recognizing clinicians' benign intent, hospitals' clinical cultures tolerate show and slow coding as acts of conscience, akin to civil disobedience. Thus, rescinding ethics standards and laws requiring prior patient/surrogate consent for non-resuscitation or for cessation of resuscitative technologies decisions should end show/slow coding. Such a reform should also recognize clinicians' right of conscientious refusal to perform CPR.</p>","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142513412","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}
BioethicsPub Date : 2024-10-19DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13364
Jeremy Williams
{"title":"Bioethics, public reason, and religion: The liberalism problem By \u0000 Fleck, Leonard M., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2022. pp. 75. £17.00 (Paperback). ISBN: 9781009078054","authors":"Jeremy Williams","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13364","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 1","pages":"151-152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142861729","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}