AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Takimoto, Yoshiyuki; Nabeshima, Tadanori

doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2160511pmid: 36576142

Abstract Background In current Western medical ethics, patient-centered medicine is considered the norm. However, the cultural background of collectivism in East Asia often leads to family-centered decision-making. In Japan, prior studies have reported that family-centered decision-making is more likely to be preferred in situations of disease notification and end-of-life decision-making. Nonetheless, there has been a recent shift from collectivism to individualism due to changes in the social structure. Various personal factors have also been reported to influence moral decision-making. Therefore, this study examined whether the current trend in attitudes of healthcare decision-making in Japan is family-centered or patient-centered among the general public and physicians. In addition, the personal factors that influence this tendency were examined. Methods Three vignettes on disease notification and two vignettes on decision-making during end-of-life care were created, and 457 members of the public and 284 physicians were asked about their attitudes (behavioral intentions) regarding these vignettes. Results Approximately, 95% of physicians were patient-centered in explaining the patient’s severe medical condition. However, approximately 80% of physicians emphasized the wishes of the family over patient wishes when making life-sustaining decisions. Nearly half the general public emphasized the patient’s wishes in the explanation of a severe medical condition and in life-sustaining decisions. In both the public and physician groups, personal factors, particularly the presence or absence of a disease under treatment and prior caregiving experience, influenced ethical attitudes toward medical treatment decisions. Conclusions In relatively low-conflict situations, such as the announcement of a patient’s medical condition, physicians tended to be patient-centered, while they tended to be family-centered in situations of strong conflict in withholding life-sustaining treatment. The fact that personal factors influenced the family-centered response in situations of strong conflict highlights the importance of not only acquiring knowledge of medical ethics but also learning to fairly apply this knowledge in practice.

Weaver, Meaghann S.; Wichman, Christopher; Sharma, Shiven; Walter, Jennifer K.

doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2160512pmid: 36574230

Abstract Background Despite national increase in pediatric ethics consultation volume over the past decade, protected time and resources for healthcare ethics consultancy work has lagged. Methods Correlation study investigating potential associations between ethics consult volume reported by recent national survey of consultants at children’s hospitals and five programmatic domains. Results 104 children’s hospitals in 45 states plus Washington DC were included. There was not a statistically significant association between pediatric ethics consult volume and hospital size, rurality of patient population, or number of consultants. Academically-affiliated children’s hospitals had fewer ethics consults compared to nonacademically affiliated. Association was found between full-time equivalent (FTE) hours and number of ethics consults (p < 0.0001). Spearman rank correlation between ethics consult volume and FTE was 0.5. Conclusions While the results of this study should be interpreted with caution, investment in protected time for ethics consultancy work may translate into increased volume of pediatric ethics consults.

Wadden, Jordan Joseph; Hermiston, Jordan; Blydt-Hansen, Tom D.; Dhaliwal, Ranjeet; Gielen, Shelby; Virani, Alice

doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2160513pmid: 36574227

Abstract Background Nonanonymized direct contact between organ recipients and donor families is a topic of international interest in the adult context. However, there is limited discussion about whether direct contact should be extended to pediatric settings due to clinician and researcher concerns of the potential harms to pediatric patients. Methods We interviewed pediatric organ recipients, their families, and donorfamilies in British Columbia, Canada, to determine their views on direct contact. Interviews were conducted in two stages, with those who were further removed from the transplant process informing the approach to interviews with those who more recently went throughthe transplant process. Results Twenty-nine individuals participated in twenty in-depth interviews. The study included participants from three major organ systems: kidney, heart, and liver. Only five participants expressed that direct contact might cause harm or discomfort, while twenty-three indicated they saw significant potential for benefits. Nearly half focused on the harms to others rather than themselves, and nearly two-thirds focused on the benefits for others rather than themselves. Conclusion There appears to be a community desire for direct contact in pediatric organ transplant programs among those living in British Columbia, Canada. These results suggest a need to revisit the medical community’s assumptions around protection and paternalism in our practice as clinicians and researchers.

Song, Minna; Kramer, Camille T.; Sufrin, Carolyn B.; Eber, Gabriel B.; Rubenstein, Leonard S.; Beyrer, Chris; Saloner, Brendan

doi: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2180105pmid: 36811402

Abstract Background COVID-19 has greatly impacted the health of incarcerated individuals in the US. The goal of this study was to examine perspectives of recently incarcerated individuals on greater restrictions on liberty to mitigate COVID-19 transmission. Methods We conducted semi-structured phone interviews from August through October 2021 with 21 people who had been incarcerated in Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities during the pandemic. Transcripts were coded and analyzed, using a thematic analysis approach. Results Many facilities implemented universal “lockdowns,” with time out of the cell often limited to one hour per day, with participants reporting not being able to meet all essential needs such as showers and calling loved ones. Several study participants reported that repurposed spaces and tents created for quarantine and isolation provided “unlivable conditions.” Participants reported receiving no medical attention while in isolation, and staff using spaces designated for disciplinary purposes (e.g., solitary housing units) for public health isolation purposes. This resulted in the conflation of isolation and discipline, which discouraged symptom reporting. Some participants felt guilty over potentially causing another lockdown by not reporting their symptoms. Programming was frequently stopped or curtailed and communication with the outside was limited. Some participants relayed that staff threatened to punish noncompliance with masking and testing. Liberty restrictions were purportedly rationalized by staff with the idea that incarcerated people should not expect freedoms, while those incarcerated blamed staff for bringing COVID-19 into the facility. Conclusions Our results highlighted how actions by staff and administrators decreased the legitimacy of the facilities’ COVID-19 response and were sometimes counterproductive. Legitimacy is key in building trust and obtaining cooperation with otherwise unpleasant but necessary restrictive measures. To prepare for future outbreaks facilities must consider the impact of liberty-restricting decisions on residents and build legitimacy for these decisions by communicating justifications to the extent possible.

Eversmann, Colin; Shah, Ayush; Lazaridis, Christos; Ross, Lainie F.

doi: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2180106pmid: 36854130

Abstract Background There is lack of consensus in the bioethics literature regarding the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for organ-preserving purposes. In this study, we assessed the perspectives of clinicians in critical care settings to better inform donor management policy and practice. Methods An online anonymous survey of members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine that presented various scenarios about CPR for organ preservation. Results The email was sent to 10,340 members. It was opened by 5,416 (52%) of members and 405 members (4%) completed the survey with few missing data. A majority of respondents (81%) answered that donation status should not influence whether CPR is performed on an imminently dying patient. There was very strong agreement (>85%) that 1) CPR should be performed on a registered donor who experiences a cardiac arrest with an unknown code status before death by neurological criteria (DNC) and 2) CPR should be performed if the patient is not a registered donor and experiences cardiac arrest but the surrogate/power of attorney (POA) has not yet been approached regarding code status and donation. When a registered donor with a DNR order experiences cardiac arrest before DNC, 98% of respondents would not perform CPR. However, after DNC, respondents were evenly divided on whether they would (49%) or would not (51%) perform CPR on a registered donor with an undocumented code status. When asked whether consent should be required for CPR for organ-preserving purposes, 39% answered “Yes” when a patient arrests before DNC and 48% answered “Yes” when a patient arrests after DNC (P = 0.2). Conclusions The majority of respondents did not consider donor status relevant to CPR decisions before DNC, and virtually all would respect a DNR order in a registered donor before DNC. Respondents were divided about the need for an affirmative consent for CPR for organ-preserving purposes both before and after DNC.

Nicholls, Stuart G.; Taylor, Holly A.; James, Richard; Anderson, Emily E.; Friesen, Phoebe; Schonfeld, Toby; Summers, Elyse I.

doi: 10.1080/23294515.2023.2180107pmid: 36821084

Abstract Background Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members’ roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs. Methods We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members. Results 76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials. Conclusions Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.