Medical maternalism: beyond paternalism and antipaternalism

Caring for Pregnant Patients with Cancer: A Framework for Ethical and Patient-Centred Care

(1) Background: Caring for pregnant cancer patients is clinically and ethically complex. There is no structured ethical guidance for healthcare professionals caring for these patients. (2) Objective: This concept paper proposes a theoretically grounded framework to support ethical and patient-centred care of pregnant cancer patients. (3) Methodological approach: The framework development was based on ethical models applicable to cancer care during pregnancy-namely principle-based approaches (biomedical ethics principles developed by Beauchamp and Childress and the European principles in bioethics and biolaw) and relational, patient-focused approaches (relational ethics, ethics of care and medical maternalism)-and informed by a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines. (4) Results: Five foundational discussion themes, summarising the key ethical considerations that should be taken into account by healthcare professionals while discussing treatment and care options with these patients, were identified. This was further developed into a comprehensive ethics checklist that can be used during clinical appointments and highlights the need for a holistic view to patient treatment, care and counselling while providing ethical, patient-centric care. (5) Conclusion: The proposed framework was further operationalised into an ethics checklist for healthcare professionals that aims to help them anticipate and address ethical concerns that may arise when attending to pregnant cancer patients. Further studies exploring clinicians' attitudes towards cancer treatment in the course of pregnancy and patient experiences when diagnosed with cancer while pregnant and wider stakeholder engagement are needed to inform the development of further ethical, patient-centred guidance.

Physician-Patient Relationship in Current Cosmetic Surgery Demands More than Mere Respect for Patient Autonomy—Is It Time for the Anti-Paternalistic Model?

The ethical framework of cosmetic surgery is distinct from the one associated with clinical medicine. This distinctiveness has led to significant difficulties in conceptualizing the physician-patient relationship (PPR), as most models have been developed specifically for the latter. The purpose of this article is to show that the PPR in cosmetic surgery can be better described through a distinct approach that we name the anti-paternalistic model of the PPR, and we will briefly present the differences between it and autonomy-based models. We will analyze the principle of non-interference, the variable degree of autonomy of both the patient and the physician within this relationship, the handling of the relevant information, the principle of beneficence as satisfaction, the difficulties regarding the informed consent, the algorithm allowing for the refusal of the procedure, and children-related issues. Based on this analysis, we will show that an anti-paternalistic model of the PPR is preferable to an autonomy-based one, as it allows for better clarification of the underlying ethical issues involved in cosmetic surgery.

Patients' Choice, Consent, and Ethics in Patient Blood Management

The goal of patient blood management (PBM) is to optimize clinical outcomes for individual patients by managing their blood as a precious and unique resource to be safeguarded and managed judiciously. A corollary to successful PBM is the minimization or avoidance of blood transfusion and stewardship of donated blood. The first is achieved by a multidisciplinary approach with personalized management plans shared and decided on with the patient or their substitute. It follows that the physician-patient relationship is an integral component of medical practice and the fundamental link between patient and doctor based on trust and honest communication. Central to PBM is accurate and timely diagnosis based on sound physiology and pathophysiology as the bedrock on which scientifically based medicine is founded. PBM in all disease contexts starts with the questions, "What is the status of the patient's blood?" "If there are specific abnormalities in the blood, how should they be managed?" and "If allogeneic blood transfusion is considered, is there no reasonable alternative therapy?" There are compelling scientific reasons to implement a nontransfusion default position when there is clinical uncertainty and questionable evidence of clinical efficacy for allogeneic blood transfusion due to known potential hazards. Patients must be informed of their diagnosis, the nature, severity and prognosis of the disease, and treatment options along with risks and benefits. They should be involved in decision-making regarding their management. However, as part of this process, there are multifaceted medical, legal, ethical, and economic issues, encompassing shared decision-making, patient choice, and informed consent. Furthermore, variability in patient circumstances and preferences, the complexity of medical science, and the workings of health care systems in which consent takes place can be bewildering, not only for the patient but also for clinicians obtaining consent. Adding "patient" to the concept of blood management differentiates it from "donor" blood management to avoid confusion and the perception that PBM is a specific medical intervention. Personalized PBM is tailoring the PBM to the specific characteristics of each patient. With this approach, there should be no difficulty addressing the informed consent and ethical aspects of PBM. Patients can usually be reassured that there is nothing out of order with their blood, in which case the focus of PBM is to keep it that way. In some circumstances, a hematologist may be involved as a patient's blood advocate when abnormalities require expert involvement while the primary disease is being managed.

Autonomy in Japan: What does it Look Like?

This paper analysed the nature of autonomy, in particular respect for autonomy in medical ethics/bioethics in Japan. We have undertaken a literature survey in Japanese and English and begin with the historical background and explanation of the Japanese word Jiritsu (autonomy). We go on to identify patterns of meaning that researchers use in medical ethics / bioethics discussions in Japan, namely, Beauchamp and Childress’s individual autonomy, relational autonomy, and O’Neill’s principled autonomy as the three major ways that autonomy is understood. We examine papers discussing these interpretations. We propose using the term ‘a form of autonomy’ first used by Edmund Pellegrino in 1992 and examine the nature of ‘a form of autonomy.’ We finally conclude that the crux of what Pellegrino calls ‘something close to autonomy,’ or ‘a form of autonomy' might best be understood as the minimization of physician paternalism and the maximization of respect for patient preference. Simultaneously, we introduce a family-facilitated approach to informed consent and respond to criticism by Laura Sullivan. Finally, we discuss cross-cultural approaches and global bioethics. Furthermore, we use the term ‘Bioethics across the Globe’ instead of ‘Global Bioethics’, calling for international scholars to write works to provide an in-depth understanding of each country. We conclude that deep understanding of others is pivotal for dialogue to be of value. We hope this article will deepen the reader’s understanding of Japan and will contribute to the progress of bioethics worldwide.

Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice

BACKGROUND

Over two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and perpetrators, but healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not share information related to DVA across healthcare settings and with other agencies or services.

AIM

We aimed to analyse and highlight the commonalities, inconsistencies, gaps and ambiguities in English guidance for HCPs around medical confidentiality, information sharing or DVA specifically.

SETTING

The English National Health Service.

DESIGN AND METHOD

We conducted a desk-based review, adopting the READ approach to document analysis. This approach is a method of qualitative health policy research and involves four steps for gathering, and extracting information from, documents. Its four steps are: (1) Ready your materials, (2) Extract data, (3) Analyse data and (4) Distill your findings. Documents were identified by searching websites of national bodies in England that guide and regulate clinical practice and by backwards citation-searching documents we identified initially.

RESULTS

We found 13 documents that guide practice. The documents provided guidance on (1) sharing information without consent, (2) sharing with or for multiagency risk assessment conferences (MARACs), (3) sharing for formal safeguarding and (4) sharing within the health service. Key findings were that guidance documents for HCPs emphasise that sharing information without consent can happen in only exceptional circumstances; documents are inconsistent, contradictory and ambiguous; and none of the documents, except one safeguarding guide, mention how coercive control can influence patients' free decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidance for HCPs on sharing information about DVA is numerous, inconsistent, ambiguous and lacking in detail, highlighting a need for coherent recommendations for cross-speciality clinical practice. Recommendations should reflect an understanding of the manifestations, dynamics and effects of DVA, particularly coercive control.

Custodians of Information: Patient and Physician Views on Sharing Medical Records in the Acute Care Setting

In the UK, in the acute in-patient setting, the only information that a patient receives about their medical care is verbal; there is no routine patient access to any part of the medical record. It has been suggested that this should change, so that patients can have real-time access to their notes, but no one has previously explored patient or clinician views on the impact this might have. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 patients and 13 doctors about their experience of information sharing in the context of the acute care setting, and their views on sharing all of the medical records, or a summary note. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, double coded and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Patients were not given written information and did not ask questions even when they wanted to know things. Patients and doctors supported increased sharing of written information, but the purpose of the medical record - and the risks and benefits of sharing it - were disputed. Concerns included disclosing uncertainty, changing what was written, and causing patient anxiety. Benefits included increased transparency. Use of a summary record was welcomed as a way to empower patients, while doctors felt they had a responsibility to curate what information was given and when. A clinical summary for patients would be of benefit to doctors, nurses, patients and their relatives. It should be designed to reflect the needs of all users, and evaluated to consider patient-relevant outcomes and resource implications.

Exploring the Relationship between Shared Decision-Making, Patient-Centered Medicine, and Evidence-Based Medicine

Shared decision-making is a possible link between the best of patient-centered medicine and evidence-based medicine. This article seeks to describe the link between them. It discusses to what extent the integration of such perspectives is successful in assuring respect for the patient's autonomy. From the evidence herein, we conclude that if the doctor-patient relationship and communication are strengthened to cover all issues relevant to the patient's health and values, is it possible for him or her to achieve more autonomous decisions by this linkage of shared decision-making and patient-centered medicine?

SUMMARY

Shared decision-making is a possible link between the best of patient-centered medicine and evidence-based medicine. This article seeks to describe the link between them.

In Defense of Patient Autonomy in Kidney Failure Care When Treatment Choices Are Limited

Respect for patient autonomy is a primary ethical obligation of health care providers. In kidney health care, clinical practice recommendations commonly include strategies to promote shared decision making with patients and their families about treatment options to promote patient autonomy and improve patient outcomes. However, for many people with kidney failure, treatment options may be unavailable or inaccessible. In these circumstances some clinicians may act paternalistically and withhold information from patients because of a fear of causing harm or because clinicians believe that patient autonomy is not a relevant consideration. In this article, we reflect on the concept of autonomy in the context of clinical decision making in kidney failure care, with particular attention to resource-constrained settings and the disclosure of information to patients for whom treatment may be inaccessible. We examine and address key concerns that patient autonomy may be impossible, irrelevant, or harmful in the context of limited treatment choices, and discuss factors that may influence paternalistic practices in such settings. We conclude that respect for autonomy is intrinsically and instrumentally valuable, and argue that in neglecting patient autonomy in resource-constrained settings, clinicians may exacerbate and entrench the structural inequalities and health inequities they are committed to addressing.

Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of shared decision making to empower youth who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a method to improve treatment adherence, placement stability, and other youth-centric outcomes for children who have been victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC). This project seeks to characterize service providers' perspectives on the adoption and implementation of SDM into treatment and placement planning decisions.

METHOD

Sixteen key stakeholders who provide services for youth who have experienced CSEC in a Southern city, as well as adults who survived exploitation as children, were individually interviewed. These interviews focused on stakeholders' perspective on the appropriateness and contextual considerations regarding implementing this model to engage youth in decision-making conversations. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using group-based inductive content analysis.

RESULT

While all participants acknowledged the philosophical importance of including youth in decision-making, perspectives varied on how this philosophy could be operationalized. Trauma-bonds to offenders, distrust in service systems, and policy and time constraints were discussed as potential barriers to implementation. Perceived benefits to applying this model included encouraging youth empowerment, helping youth develop decision-making skills, and strengthening relationships between youth and providers. Implementation considerations mirrored those seen in other medical and behavioral health settings, including extensive training, fidelity monitoring, enforcement through policy and legislation, and ultimately resetting the culture of services to be maximally youth inclusive.

CONCLUSION

Participants supported the use of SDM to standardize the inclusion of youth in treatment and placement planning decisions. However, there exist challenges in defining exactly how to adopt this approach, and how to implement broad-scale cultural change within the service-providing community.

Metaphor Analysis as a Window into How Japanese Entry-level Medical Students Conceptualize Their Future Profession as Physicians

Metaphor analysis is a useful tool for uncovering tacit assumptions and beliefs. In education, metaphor analysis of students' attitudes and motivations can provide useful insights for educational discourse and curriculum development. The current metaphor analysis of Japanese entry-level medical students' conceptualizations of their future profession of physician was conducted to determine what insights might be derived therefrom for medical educational discourse and curriculum development. For the analysis, the students filled in the blanks of a metaphorical statement, A physician is like _____ because _____, and the metaphors thus collected were coded using content analysis procedures. Ninety-one metaphorical statements were included for analysis. Two generic-level conceptual metaphors were identified: the physician as deeply caring figure (49/91, 53.8%), in which metaphors relating to family members were predominant (25/49, 51.0%), and the physician as specially able and skillful figure, in which just over half of the metaphors related to a super being (22/42, 52.3%). The predominantly positive metaphors elicited by this study reflect high levels of idealism in this group of students about to embark on their medical studies. However, the high number of metaphors relating the physician to a super being emphasizes the need for space in the medical curriculum devoted to discussion of the realities of uncertainty and fallibility in medical care. Extrapolating more broadly, metaphor analysis may be used in other areas of the medical profession, such as for exploring values and beliefs about medical practice and for comparing cross-cultural perspectives in medical teams composed of members from different countries.

Preparing medical students for the e-patient. MEDICAL TEACHER 2017;39:681-685. [PMID: 28532256 DOI: 10.1080/0142159x.2017.1324142]

The emergence of the e-patient has resulted in many medical practitioners' being ill-equipped to deal with the 21st-century medical practice. This Guide is a teaching guide for medical educators so that they can prepare their students for the new environment that has resulted from the emergence of the e-patient. Within the context of theoretical perspectives, the Guide begins by defining the concept, and examining the history of the e-patient, detailing typical e-patient activities and some complexities raised by these activities. Finally, the Guide details the topic areas that should be covered in a course aimed at preparing medical students for e-patients. The result is a theoretical and practical teaching Guide that equips medical teachers and their students with the necessary background information, and also assists teachers in the teaching of that information so that their students may become health practitioners fully equipped to deal with the problems and potential of the e-patient.

Recent developments have made female permanent contraception an increasingly attractive option, and pregnant women in particular ought to be counselled about it

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased prevalence of reversible contraception, global unintended pregnancy rates are stable. Mistakes, method failures, side effects, alcohol, stock-outs, fears, costs, delays, myths, religious interference, doctors with other priorities, traditions and lack of health professionals may all factor in. Yet these unintended pregnancies - nearly a hundred million annually - cause much individual suffering, and in the long run, can aggravate conflicts, poverty, forced emigration and climate change. Presently, non-poor women postpone childbearing because of longer educational trajectories and careers. Sterilisations are therefore less often regretted or coerced. For poor-resourced women with a completed family, an unwanted pregnancy often has serious consequences, including crossing the (extreme) poverty line in the wrong direction, choosing an unsafe abortion, or even death. Caesarean sections (CSs), which currently stand at around 23 million annually, are increasing. On an "intention-never-to-become-pregnant-again" analysis, choosing a partial, and even more so a total bilateral tubectomy to be implemented during an - anyway performed - CS is by far the most reliable and safe contraceptive choice compared to meaning to start female or male sterilisation or any other contraceptive method later, and it reduces the chance of a future ovarian carcinoma substantially. CSs make subsequent pregnancies more dangerous. Simultaneously, they provide convenient, potentially cost-free opportunities for voluntary permanent contraception (PC): particularly important if there is no guaranteed future access to reliable contraception, safe abortion and well-supervised labour.

PARTIAL SOLUTION

Millions of women are within reach of attaining freedom from the "tyranny of excessive fertility" when they have a CS. Therefore, any woman who might conceivably be of the firm opinion that her family will be (over) completed after delivery should antenatally have "what if you have a CS" counselling to assess whether she would like a tubectomy/ligation. Yet many are not provided with this option: leading to frequent regret, more often than having been giving that choice would.

CONCLUSION

Withholding antenatal counselling about the option of PC for in case the delivery might become a CS is very prevalent, yet often more medically risky, and morally questionable than when, even in labour, a doctor sometimes decides in the absence of earlier counselling, considering numerous factors, to provide the choice to undergo a concurrent sterilisation if s/he is convinced that would be in the patient's best interest.