Bioethics最新文献_第5页

In Defence of Causing Patients to Worry: Ethical Issues in the Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty 为使病人担心辩护：诊断不确定性交流中的伦理问题。

IF 2.1 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-11 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13436

Caitríona Cox, Zoë Fritz

{"title":"In Defence of Causing Patients to Worry: Ethical Issues in the Communication of Diagnostic Uncertainty","authors":"Caitríona Cox, Zoë Fritz","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13436","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13436","url":null,"abstract":"Doctors are often motivated by a desire to avoid causing their patients worry. In this paper, we provide a defence of disclosing diagnostic uncertainty information to patients, even if such disclosures are worrying. We first consider whether making a patient worry harms them, arguing that worry can be harmful in some—but not all—situations. Although worry is an aversive emotion, sometimes, worry can be beneficial (e.g., if the worry drives adaptive behaviours that are ultimately good for the patient's well-being). In contrast, worry that is excessive, or is related to events outside the patient's control, can be considered harmful. Even if worry is harmful, communicating worrying information can still sometimes be justified—for example, by applying a consequentialist harm–benefit analysis to consider whether the other benefits of the disclosure (broadly defined) might outweigh the harm created by the worry. We summarise the growing empirical evidence that suggests that patients often prefer their doctors to communicate transparently throughout the diagnostic process, even if the acknowledgement of serious but uncertain diagnoses induces some worry. We do, however, note the difficulty in predicting how an individual patient will respond to the disclosure of potentially worrying information (as the preference for greater communication of diagnostic uncertainty may not be universal). We conclude that a holistic consideration of the expected consequences of communication—including self-assessment by the doctor to avoid unwitting bias or unwarranted projection of their own values—often supports the communication of diagnostic uncertainty information, even if it worries the patient.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 7","pages":"700-708"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13436","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144276778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Euthanasia, Anti-Egalitarian Bias, and Breach of the Duty of Medical Care: A Reply to Rivera López 安乐死，反平等主义偏见，违反医疗义务：对里维拉的回复López。

IF 2.1 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-11 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13439

Federico Germán Abal

引用次数: 0

The Ethics of Informed Consent for Data Registries: Moving Beyond Moral Minimalism to the High Ground 数据注册的知情同意伦理：超越道德极简主义到制高点。

IF 2.1 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-11 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13438

George Rugare Chingarande

引用次数: 0

From Abstinence to Assistance: Antinatalism's Unexpected Endorsement of the Principle of Procreative Beneficence 从禁欲到帮助：反出生主义对生育慈善原则的意外认可。

IF 2.1 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-11 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13432

Marcus T. L. Teo

引用次数: 0

In hospital resource allocation conflicts between health goods and environmental goods, a relational, co-benefits frame, rather than a dualistic, competing goods frame, is key 在医院卫生产品与环境产品之间的资源配置冲突中，关键是建立一种关系的、共同利益的框架，而不是二元的、竞争的产品框架。

IF 1.7 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-08 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.70002

David G. Kirchhoffer, Bridget Pratt

{"title":"In hospital resource allocation conflicts between health goods and environmental goods, a relational, co-benefits frame, rather than a dualistic, competing goods frame, is key","authors":"David G. Kirchhoffer, Bridget Pratt","doi":"10.1111/bioe.70002","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.70002","url":null,"abstract":"Health systems contribute to the environmental crisis. Yet, addressing this problem seems to generate a resource allocation dilemma for hospitals: investing in healthcare delivery seems to mean sacrificing environmental goods, and vice versa. We question this zero-sum thinking. After presenting the benefits of investing in the two seemingly competing goods—environmental goods and health goods—we propose that the apparent dilemma arises due to a tendency to think in dualisms. Consequently, health and environmental goods seem, respectively, to correspond to opposing sides of four dualisms: human/nature, local/global, present/future and therapy/prevention. We argue, instead, that a relational frame that considers the human person in their relational context should be used to approach the problem. A relational understanding of the human person as a meaning-making subject in relationship to all that is shows us that choosing between either health goods or environmental goods is frequently a false dichotomy: both can serve the well-being of human beings adequately understood. Such an approach, then, widens our conception of health and healthcare to include environmental goods. This wider conception of health and healthcare means that hospitals should (1) look for co-benefits in the first instance when allocating resources, thereby often resolving zero-sum thinking that gives rise to the competing goods dilemma, and (2) in the remaining cases where co-benefits are not achievable, use classic resource allocation principles, such as proportionality of benefits and burdens, to reach allocation decisions about a now wider range of goods (i.e., health and environmental, rather than merely health goods).","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":"39 6","pages":"565-575"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144250993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Toward a Global Bioethics: Principlism and the Problem of Political Legitimacy. 走向全球生命伦理学：原则主义与政治合法性问题。

IF 1.7 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-06-08 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13434

Marco Annoni

引用次数: 0

A Bioethical Assessment of the Environmental Impacts of War. 战争对环境影响的生物伦理评估。

IF 1.7 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2025-05-26 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13431

Funda Gülay Kadioglu

引用次数: 0

Biobank Diversity and the Perils of Race Essentialism 生物样本库的多样性和种族本质主义的危险。