Balancing competing interests and obligations in mental health-care practice and policy

Mapping the ethical aspects in end-of-life care for persons with a severe and persistent mental illness: A scoping review of the literature

Persons with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI) make up a vulnerable group within mental healthcare and society. Not only do they suffer from long-term, serious psychiatric disorders; they often also experience considerable problems in their psychosocial functioning. Research has disclosed that the care needs of this target group are complex, and that the life expectancy of these persons is significantly lower than in the general population. Given (1) the lower life expectancy of persons with SPMI, (2) the higher suicide risk related to mental disorders, and (3) the legalization and practice of medical assistance in dying in an increasing number of countries, it is of utmost importance to map the ethical aspects and challenges of end-of-life care needs in persons with SPMI. Therefore, we charted the way end-of-life care is provided for them by means of a scoping review of the scientific literature, with an emphasis on the ethical aspects surrounding it. We explore existing ethical dilemmas; the underlying ethical values, principles and attitudes; and the locus and stakeholders of ethical dialog regarding end-of-life care in persons with SPMI. The results indicate that the four guiding principles of biomedical ethics can well be identified in the literature, and are each addressed in their own specific way: Autonomy in relation to questions regarding the decision-making capacity of persons with SPMI; Justice in relation to access to quality care and the presence of stigma; and Non-maleficence and Beneficence in relation to the ongoing debate regarding the benefits and obstacles in applying palliative care approaches in the context of psychiatry, and the status of the futility-concept therein. Personal virtues and attitudes in care professionals, like compassion, non-abandonment and upholding dignity are key, as care professionals are the main advocates of persons with SPMI, which often lack an extensive social network. Further, we find that the ethical dialog is mainly focused on care professionals and relatives, rather than the persons with SPMI themselves. This is reflected in the existing research that often had the voices of the latter missing. Future research may benefit from the inclusion of persons with SMPI’s first-hand accounts. End-of-life care for persons with SPMI may benefit from identifying and integrating (locally developed) good practices like cross-sectoral education, specific care models, and ethics support.

Should Institutional Conscientious Objection to Assisted Dying be Accommodated?

The contentious, topical debate about whether faith-based health care organizations should be granted accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to medical assistance is dying (MAiD) is addressed through a comparative analysis of arguments on both sides of the issue that references such relevant considerations as: claimed ‘moral-authority’, competing rights-based claims, obligations arising from patient welfare principles, formal justice, dissimilarity in consequences, and two illustrative arguments from analogy. The analysis leads to the conclusion that nonconditional accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to MAiD is not ethically acceptable in Canada. A compromise mechanism, consisting of a suggested set of pragmatic conditions, is proposed that could effectively balance the competing moral responsibilities that arise from this conclusion and a core assumption of the paper, i.e., that some dominant faith-based health institutions can legitimately request, and expect, that provincial/territorial governments pay them a measure of respect in their operational, health-care-delivery decision making because of these institutions’ long history of providing high quality, health care in Canada. It is further suggested that provincial/territorial governments only allow large, publicly funded, faith-based health care organizations to enact a conditional version of accommodation on the basis of institutional conscientious objection to MAiD in circumstances where the organization has entered into a formal agreement with the relevant health department to meet the proposed, compromise conditions (or a relevantly-similar set of conditions).