How Should Clinicians Weigh the Benefits and Harms of Discussing Politicized Topics that Influence Their Individual Patients\u27 Health?

Health implications of politically charged phenomena are particularly difficult for physicians to discuss with their patients and communities. Addressing climate change and its associated health effects involves trade-offs between health and economic prosperity, necessitating that physicians weigh the potential benefits and risks of discussing climate change health effects. We argue that the potential benefits of physician communication and advocacy ultimately outweigh the potential risks. Therefore, physicians should be supported in their efforts to educate their patients and communities about climate change health effects. Furthermore, democratic deliberation could prove helpful in addressing disagreements among physicians within a practice about such politicized health topics

Informed consent and research design in critical care medicine

marking the progress that has been made in ensuring respect for human rights both within and beyond the context of medical research [1]. Today, many journal editors will refuse to consider manuscripts that have not undergone formal review by an independent committee, and virtually none will publish results that were procured without the explicit informed consent of the subjects. In one sense, therefore, the bioethics movement of the past several decades seems to have scored a resounding victory. In another sense, however, the rapid pace of medical research and the increasing effectiveness of medical interventions have only intensified the ethical dilemmas that physicians encounter in clinical research. The intensive care environment, in particular, has several characteristics that provide especially difficult challenges to the standar

'Round-table' ethical debate: is a suicide note an authoritative 'living will'?

Living wills are often considered by physicians who are faced with a dying patient. Although popular with the general public, they remain problems of authenticity and authority. It is difficult for the examining physician to know whether the patient understood the terms of the advance directive when they signed it, and whether they still consider it authoritative at the time that it is produced. Also, there is little consensus on what spectrum of instruments constitutes a binding advance directive in real life. Does a 'suicide note' constitute an authentic and authoritative 'living will'? Our panel of authorities considers this problem in a round-table discussion

Categorized priority systems: a new tool for fairly allocating scarce medical resources in the face of profound social inequities

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated medical ethicists and several task forces to revisit or issue new guidelines on allocating scarce medical resources. Such guidelines are relevant for the allocation of scarce therapeutics and vaccines and for allocation of ICU beds, ventilators, and other life-sustaining treatments or potentially scarce interventions. Principles underlying these guidelines, like saving the most lives, mitigating disparities, reciprocity to those who assume additional risk (eg, essential workers and clinical trial participants), and equal access may compete with one another. We propose the use of a “categorized priority system” (also known as a “reserve system”) as an improvement over existing allocation methods, particularly because it may be able to achieve disparity mitigation better than other methods

Categorized priority systems: a new tool for fairly allocating scarce medical resources in the face of profound social inequities

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has motivated medical ethicists and several task forces to revisit or issue new guidelines on allocating scarce medical resources. Such guidelines are relevant for the allocation of scarce therapeutics and vaccines and for allocation of ICU beds, ventilators, and other life-sustaining treatments or potentially scarce interventions. Principles underlying these guidelines, like saving the most lives, mitigating disparities, reciprocity to those who assume additional risk (eg, essential workers and clinical trial participants), and equal access may compete with one another. We propose the use of a “categorized priority system” (also known as a “reserve system”) as an improvement over existing allocation methods, particularly because it may be able to achieve disparity mitigation better than other methods

The 25th Anniversary of the Baby Doe Rules: Perspectives from the Fields of Law, Health Care, Ethics, and Disability Policy

A highly publicized and controversial case involving the withholding of medical treatment from a “Baby Doe” with Down syndrome gave rise in 1984 to the federal law known as the Baby Doe Rules, which went into effect the following year. The law conditions the grant of federal funds for any state’s child protective services program on the state’s assurance that it can respond to reports of medical neglect, which may include the withholding of medical treatment from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. Leading scholars and practitioners from the fields of health care, law, ethics, and disability policy who are experts in the field of neonatal medicine and decision-making involving very premature and other medically at-risk infants gathered to provide thoughtful commentary and debate on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Baby Doe Rules. The Georgia State University Law Review will publish a symposium volume on the topic in Fall 2009

The 25th Anniversary of the Baby Doe Rules: Perspectives from the Fields of Law, Health Care, Ethics, and Disability Policy

A highly publicized and controversial case involving the withholding of medical treatment from a “Baby Doe” with Down syndrome gave rise in 1984 to the federal law known as the Baby Doe Rules, which went into effect the following year. The law conditions the grant of federal funds for any state’s child protective services program on the state’s assurance that it can respond to reports of medical neglect, which may include the withholding of medical treatment from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. Leading scholars and practitioners from the fields of health care, law, ethics, and disability policy who are experts in the field of neonatal medicine and decision-making involving very premature and other medically at-risk infants gathered to provide thoughtful commentary and debate on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Baby Doe Rules. The Georgia State University Law Review will publish a symposium volume on the topic in Fall 2009

Utility of echocardiography in predicting mortality in infants with severe bronchopulmonary dysplasia

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Objective: To determine the relationship between interventricular septal position (SP) and right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) and mortality in infants with severe BPD (sBPD). Study design: Infants with sBPD in the Children's Hospitals Neonatal Database who had echocardiograms 34-44 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) were included. SP and RVSP were categorized normal, abnormal (flattened/bowed SP or RVSP > 40 mmHg) or missing. Results: Of 1157 infants, 115 infants (10%) died. Abnormal SP or RVSP increased mortality (SP 19% vs. 8% normal/missing, RVSP 20% vs. 9% normal/missing, both p < 0.01) in unadjusted and multivariable models, adjusted for significant covariates (SP OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0; RVSP OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.7). Abnormal parameters had high specificity (SP 82%; RVSP 94%), and negative predictive value (SP 94%, NPV 91%) for mortality. Conclusions: Abnormal SP or RVSP is independently associated with mortality in sBPD infants. Negative predictive values distinguish infants most likely to survive