Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency

Emerging Dilemmas in the Age of Resistance: The Case of Sexually Transmitted Infections

The stage is set for a new era of precariousness in modern medicine, driven by the increasing failure of a key pharmaceutical pillar-antimicrobials. In the context of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), the rise of antimicrobial resistance is introducing urgent questions around what might constitute "best practice" in a rapidly evolving scene, including the value of asymptomatic screening (test and treat), and the consequent downstream collateral damage emerging from over-use of our diminishingly effective antimicrobial resources. Drawing on interviews with clinicians, experts, and industry representatives, we examine resistance as a site of emerging and co-constitutive moral, temporal, and economic dilemmas. Such dilemmas, as illustrated in participants' accounts, involve complexities regarding prioritization between competing health demands; doing good work while meeting business requirements; considering trade-offs between visibility and amplifying the problem; difficulties balancing presents and futures; reconciling divergent clinical opinions and expertise; and managing patient subjectivities, while considering the implications of clinical practices for resistance. Importantly, centering dilemmas in context of antibiotic-resistant STIs open greater theoretical scope to consider the challenging spaces that key actors such as clinicians and decision-makers occupy, as they attempt to curb resistance while caring for individuals and the community.

Parents' experiences of palliative care decision-making in neonatal intensive care units: An interpretative phenomenological analysis

AIM

This work explores the experiences and meaning attributed by parents who underwent the decision-making process of withholding and/or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment for their newborn.

METHODS

Audio-recorded face-to-face interviews were led and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Eight families (seven mothers and five fathers) whose baby underwent withholding and/or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment in three neonatal intensive care units from two regions in France were included.

RESULTS

The findings reveal two paradoxes within the meaning-making process of parents: role ambivalence and choice ambiguity. We contend that these paradoxes, along with the need to mitigate uncertainty, form protective psychological mechanisms that enable parents to cope with the decision, maintain their parental identity and prevent decisional regret.

CONCLUSION

Role ambivalence and choice ambiguity should be considered when shared decision-making in the neonatal intensive care unit. Recognising and addressing these paradoxical beliefs is essential for informing parent support practices and professional recommendations, as well as add to ethical discussions pertaining to parental autonomy and physicians' rapport to uncertainty.

The Promise of Artificial Intelligence in Digestive Healthcare and the Bioethics Challenges It Presents

With modern society well entrenched in the digital area, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to extract useful information from big data has become more commonplace in our daily lives than we perhaps realize. Medical specialties that rely heavily on imaging techniques have become a strong focus for the incorporation of AI tools to aid disease diagnosis and monitoring, yet AI-based tools that can be employed in the clinic are only now beginning to become a reality. However, the potential introduction of these applications raises a number of ethical issues that must be addressed before they can be implemented, among the most important of which are issues related to privacy, data protection, data bias, explainability and responsibility. In this short review, we aim to highlight some of the most important bioethical issues that will have to be addressed if AI solutions are to be successfully incorporated into healthcare protocols, and ideally, before they are put in place. In particular, we contemplate the use of these aids in the field of gastroenterology, focusing particularly on capsule endoscopy and highlighting efforts aimed at resolving the issues associated with their use when available.

Ethical Reasoning During a Pandemic: Results of a Five Country European Study

Introduction: There has been no work that identifies the hidden or implicit normative assumptions on which participants base their views during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their reasoning and how they reach moral or ethical judgements. Our analysis focused on participants' moral values, ethical reasoning and normative positions around the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.Methods: We analyzed data from 177 semi-structured interviews across five European countries (Germany, Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) conducted in April 2020.Results: Findings are structured in four themes: ethical contention in the context of normative uncertainty; patterns of ethical deliberation when contemplating restrictions and measures to reduce viral transmission; moral judgements regarding "good" and "bad" people; using existing structures of meaning for moral reasoning and ethical judgement.Discussion: Moral tools are an integral part of people's reaction to and experience of a pandemic. 'Moral preparedness' for the next phases of this pandemic and for future pandemics will require an understanding of the moral values and normative concepts citizens use in their own decision-making. Three important elements of this preparedness are: conceptual clarity over what responsibility or respect mean in practice; better understanding of collective mindsets and how to encourage them; and a situated, rather than universalist, approach to the development of normative standards.

Aligning quality improvement with better child health for the 21st century

Quality improvement (QI) has tremendous potential to tackle the shortcomings of health services. But health professionals have not yet fully embraced QI as part of their day-to-day concerns. Indeed, QI is sometimes experienced as a brake on quality rather than a catalyst for improvement. This can happen, for example, if there is too much emphasis on meeting short-term institutional goals rather than on addressing long-term health needs. This emphasis also risks equating quality with safety and efficiency measures while neglecting patient-centredness and equity. QI does not have to be like this. We suggest that the conscientious and critical engagement of health professionals in QI can lead to genuinely better and more far-reaching outcomes for child health. We also distinguish between QI projects that repair the status quo and those that seek to reform it, arguing that there is an important place for both.

Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople

Balancing the benefits and harms of mammography screening is difficult and involves a value judgement. Screening is both a medical and a social intervention, therefore public opinion could be considered when deciding if mammography screening programmes should be implemented and continued. Opinion polls have revealed high levels of public enthusiasm for cancer screening, however, the public tends to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. In the search for better public decision on mammography screening, this study investigated the quality of public opinion arising from a Deliberative Poll. In a Deliberative Poll a representative group of people is brought together to deliberate with each other and with experts based on specific information. Before, during and after the process, the participants’ opinions are assessed. In our Deliberative Poll a representative sample of the Danish population aged between 18 and 70 participated. They studied an online video and took part in five hours of intense online deliberation. We used survey data at four timepoints during the study, from recruitment to one month after the poll, to estimate the quality of decisions by the following outcomes: 1) Knowledge; 2) Ability to form opinions; 3) Opinion stability, and 4) Opinion consistency. The proportion of participants with a high level of knowledge increased from 1% at recruitment to 56% after receiving video information. More people formed an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the screening programme (12%), the economy of the programme (27%), and the ethical dilemmas of screening (10%) due to the process of information and deliberation. For 11 out of 14 opinion items, the within-item correlations between the first two inquiry time points were smaller than the correlations between later timepoints. This indicates increased opinion stability. The correlations between three pairs of opinion items deemed theoretically related a priori all increased, indicating increased opinion consistency. Overall, the combined process of online information and deliberation increased opinion quality about mammography screening by increasing knowledge and the ability to form stable and consistent opinions.

Managing ethical uncertainty: implicit normativity and the sociology of ethics

This article illustrates and discusses the idea of 'implicit normativity', and specifically its relevance to the management of ethical uncertainty. In particular I consider (i) the role implicit normativity plays in masking and containing potential ethical uncertainty and (ii) the contrast and boundary between implicit normativity and 'overt ethics' where ethical contestation - as well as particular processes and agents - are highlighted as salient. Using examples I show how the idea of implicit normativity can be applied not only to specific practices but also to whole fields of practice. The notion of 'moral settlements' - along with the explanatory role of the threat of 'chaos' - is introduced and elucidated to develop these points. I argue that attention to the management of ethical uncertainty shows the critically important contribution that an ambitious sociology of ethics can make to clinical ethics, including by helping to formulate and drive home questions about the 'ethics of ethics'. The account presented here has resonances with work that seeks to use sociological lenses to move beyond conventional bioethics, including Petersen's (2013) call for a 'normative sociology'.

What does 'quality' add? Towards an ethics of healthcare improvement

In this paper, we argue that there are important ethical questions about healthcare improvement which are underexplored. We start by drawing on two existing literatures: first, the prevailing, primarily governance-oriented, application of ethics to healthcare 'quality improvement' (QI), and second, the application of QI to healthcare ethics. We show that these are insufficient for ethical analysis of healthcare improvement. In pursuit of a broader agenda for an ethics of healthcare improvement, we note that QI and ethics can, in some respects, be treated as closely related concerns and not simply as externally related agendas. To support our argument, we explore the gap between 'quality' and 'ethics' discourses and ask about the possible differences between 'good quality healthcare' and 'good healthcare'. We suggest that the word 'quality' both adds to and subtracts from the idea of 'good healthcare', and in particular that the technicist inflection of quality discourses needs to be set in the context of broader conceptualisations of healthcare improvement. We introduce the distinction between quality as a measurable property and quality as an evaluative judgement, suggesting that a core, but neglected, question for an ethics of healthcare improvement is striking the balance between these two conceptions of quality.

The ethical, legal and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care

Breast cancer care is a leading area for development of artificial intelligence (AI), with applications including screening and diagnosis, risk calculation, prognostication and clinical decision-support, management planning, and precision medicine. We review the ethical, legal and social implications of these developments. We consider the values encoded in algorithms, the need to evaluate outcomes, and issues of bias and transferability, data ownership, confidentiality and consent, and legal, moral and professional responsibility. We consider potential effects for patients, including on trust in healthcare, and provide some social science explanations for the apparent rush to implement AI solutions. We conclude by anticipating future directions for AI in breast cancer care. Stakeholders in healthcare AI should acknowledge that their enterprise is an ethical, legal and social challenge, not just a technical challenge. Taking these challenges seriously will require broad engagement, imposition of conditions on implementation, and pre-emptive systems of oversight to ensure that development does not run ahead of evaluation and deliberation. Once artificial intelligence becomes institutionalised, it may be difficult to reverse: a proactive role for government, regulators and professional groups will help ensure introduction in robust research contexts, and the development of a sound evidence base regarding real-world effectiveness. Detailed public discussion is required to consider what kind of AI is acceptable rather than simply accepting what is offered, thus optimising outcomes for health systems, professionals, society and those receiving care.