Empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning of physicians and molecular biologists – the importance of the four principles of biomedical ethics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study presents an empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning and ethical issues at stake in the daily work of physicians and molecular biologists in Denmark. The aim of this study was to test empirically whether there is a difference in ethical considerations and principles between Danish physicians and Danish molecular biologists, and whether the bioethical principles of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress are applicable to these groups.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>This study is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with three groups of respondents: a group of oncology physicians working in a clinic at a public hospital and two groups of molecular biologists conducting basic research, one group employed at a public university and the other in a private biopharmaceutical company.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this sample, the authors found that oncology physicians and molecular biologists employed in a private biopharmaceutical company have the specific principle of beneficence in mind in their daily work. Both groups are motivated to help sick patients. According to the study, molecular biologists explicitly consider nonmaleficence in relation to the environment, the researchers' own health, and animal models; and only implicitly in relation to patients or human subjects. In contrast, considerations of nonmaleficence by oncology physicians relate to patients or human subjects. Physicians and molecular biologists both consider the principle of respect for autonomy as a negative obligation in the sense that informed consent of patients should be respected. However, in contrast to molecular biologists, physicians experience the principle of respect for autonomy as a positive obligation as the physician, in dialogue with the patient, offers a medical prognosis based upon the patients wishes and ideas, mutual understanding, and respect. Finally, this study discloses utilitarian characteristics in the overall conception of justice as conceived by oncology physicians and molecular biologists from the private biopharmaceutical company. Molecular biologists employed at a public university are, in this study, concerned with allocation, however, they do not propose a specific theory of justice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study demonstrates that each of the four bioethical principles of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress – respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice – are reflected in the daily work of physicians and molecular biologists in Denmark. Consequently, these principles are applicable in the Danish biomedical setting.</p

A conceptual framework for the ethics of synthetic biology

Synthetic biology is an emerging and promising interdisciplinary field of research. Synthetic biology deals with the design of new biological units, devices to build artificial life, or the redesign of existing natural biological systems with possible applications within many diverse areas such as energy, environment, food, and medicine. In this way, synthetic biology may help solve some of the challenges the world is facing in the 21st century. However, it is of&nbsp; the utmost importance to consider, at an early stage, the ethics of new emerging technologies such as synthetic biology and nanoscience. In this article, we argue that analogues can be drawn between nanoscience and synthetic biology. Firstly, we show that the ethical principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy, and justice are important for nanoscience, and we reveal that these principles are part of the bioethical theory of the American ethicists, Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress. Secondly, we argue that analogues can be drawn between the ethical problems of nanoscience and those of synthetic biology, and thirdly, we conclude that the theory of Beauchamp and Childress can also be used to analyze ethical issues of synthetic biology. In this article we use an oncolytic poxvirus for delivery and expression of transgenes in tumors as an example to illustrate how to use Beauchamp and Childress’ theory to analyse ethical problems of synthetic biology

Equity in digital healthcare – the case of Denmark

As digital healthcare services are expanding in use and purpose in a Danish context so are the functionalities embedded in these, constituting citizens’ access to healthcare services and personal health data. In Denmark, the impact of inequalities in digital healthcare remains largely unexplored, making it crucial to pay close attention to this aspect as the digital transformation of the sector progresses. According to the Danish Health Act (2019), the Danish healthcare system is required to ensure easy and equal access to healthcare, high-quality treatment, coherent patient pathways, freedom of choice, easy access to information, transparency, and short waiting times for every citizen. These are focal law-based requirements influenced by the digitalisation of healthcare. Hence, based on insights from a highly digitalised country, in this case, Denmark, this paper aims to initiate a discussion on inequities in digital healthcare, address current challenges, and consider future directions by elaborating on conceptual, ethical, evidence-informed, and methodological issues linked to inequities in digital healthcare. Specifically, this paper discusses why inequities in digital healthcare in a Danish context need increased attention, how health equity is embedded in Danish legislation and how it can be approached from an ethical perspective. The central focus revolves around the essential principles of empowerment, emancipation, and equity, which are being highlighted to emphasise that the digitalisation of healthcare should actively work towards preventing and avoiding the perpetuation of healthcare inequalities. The paper concludes by discussing future directions for ensuring a more sustainable, robust, and equitable digital healthcare system

The principle of respect for autonomy – Concordant with the experience of oncology physicians and molecular biologists in their daily work?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This article presents results from a qualitative empirical investigation of how Danish oncology physicians and Danish molecular biologists experience the principle of respect for autonomy in their daily work.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with three groups of respondents: a group of oncology physicians working in a clinic at a public hospital and two groups of molecular biologists conducting basic research, one group employed at a public university and the other in a private biopharmaceutical company.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that that molecular biologists consider the principle of respect for autonomy as a negative obligation, where the informed consent of patients or research subjects should be respected. Furthermore, molecular biologists believe that very sick patients are constraint by the circumstances to a certain choice. However, in contrast to molecular biologists, oncology physicians experience the principle of respect for autonomy as a positive obligation, where the physician in dialogue with the patient performs a medical prognosis based on the patient's wishes and ideas, mutual understanding and respect. Oncology physicians believe that they have a positive obligation to adjust to the level of the patient when providing information making sure that the patient understands. Oncology physicians experience situations where the principle of respect for autonomy does not apply because the patient is in a difficult situation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study we explore the moral views and attitudes of oncology physicians and molecular biologists and compare these views with bioethical theories of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress and the Danish philosophers Jakob Rendtorff & Peter Kemp. This study shows that essential parts of the two bioethical theories are reflected in the daily work of Danish oncology physicians and Danish molecular biologists. However, the study also explores dimensions where the theories can be developed further to be concordant with biomedical practice. The hope is that this study enhances the understanding of the principle of respect for autonomy and the way it is practiced.</p

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake