Ethics, conflict and medical treatment for children

What should happen when doctors and parents disagree about what would be best for a child? When should courts become involved? Should life support be stopped against parents' wishes? The case of Charlie Gard, reached global attention in 2017. It led to widespread debate about the ethics of disagreements between doctors and parents, about the place of the law in such disputes, and about the variation in approach between different parts of the world. In this book, medical ethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu critically examine the ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. They use the Gard case as a springboard to a wider discussion about the rights of parents, the harms of treatment, and the vital issue of limited resources. They discuss other prominent UK and international cases of disagreement and conflict. From opposite sides of the debate Wilkinson and Savulescu provocatively outline the strongest arguments in favour of and against treatment. They analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features of treatment disputes in the 21st century and argue that disagreement about controversial ethical questions is both inevitable and desirable. They outline a series of lessons from the Gard case and propose a radical new “dissensus” framework for future cases of disagreement

Shinmi (親身): a distinctive Japanese medical virtue?

In Western countries, the ideal professional and ethical attributes of healthcare providers and the ideal patient-doctor relationship have been analysed in detail. Other cultures, however, may have different norms, arising in response to diverse healthcare needs, cultural values and offering alternative perspectives. In this paper, drawing a case study, we introduce the concept of Shinmi, used in Japan to describe a desirable approach to medical care. Shinmi means kind or cordial in Japanese. In the medical context, it refers to doctors treating patients with a degree of emotional closeness as if they were the doctors’ own family. We analyse the concept of Shinmi, drawing on virtue ethics. We distinguish two different elements to a Shinmi-na attitude. As illustrated in our example, excessive Shinmi can be problematic for patients and doctors. Furthermore, elements of Shinmi may conflict with existing Western values (for example, norms that encourage emotional detachment and discourage doctors’ treatment of family members). However, if pursued appropriately, we argue that a balanced Shinmi-na approach can be conducive to the goals of medicine. The concept of Shinmi may be valuable for medical students, in Japanese and potentially other health care systems, and help them to cultivate a virtuous approach to meeting the emotional needs of patients

Ethics, conflict and medical treatment for children

What should happen when doctors and parents disagree about what would be best for a child? When should courts become involved? Should life support be stopped against parents' wishes? The case of Charlie Gard, reached global attention in 2017. It led to widespread debate about the ethics of disagreements between doctors and parents, about the place of the law in such disputes, and about the variation in approach between different parts of the world. In this book, medical ethicists Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu critically examine the ethical questions at the heart of disputes about medical treatment for children. They use the Gard case as a springboard to a wider discussion about the rights of parents, the harms of treatment, and the vital issue of limited resources. They discuss other prominent UK and international cases of disagreement and conflict. From opposite sides of the debate Wilkinson and Savulescu provocatively outline the strongest arguments in favour of and against treatment. They analyse some of the distinctive and challenging features of treatment disputes in the 21st century and argue that disagreement about controversial ethical questions is both inevitable and desirable. They outline a series of lessons from the Gard case and propose a radical new “dissensus” framework for future cases of disagreement

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests: Australian judicial deliberations

•Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. •A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's “best interests”. Yet what this term means is contested. •There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. •Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions

Rationing in a Pandemic: Lessons from Italy

In late February and early March 2020, Italy became the European epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite increasingly stringent containment measures enforced by the government, the health system faced an enormous pressure and extraordinary efforts were made in order to increase overall hospital beds availability and especially ICU capacity. Nevertheless, the hardest-hit hospitals in Northern Italy experienced a shortage of ICU beds and resources that led to hard allocating choices. At the beginning of March 2020, the Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) issued recommendations aimed at supporting physicians in prioritizing patients when the number of critically ill patients overwhelm the capacity of ICUs. One motivating concern for the SIAARTI guidance was that, if no balanced and consistent allocation procedures were applied to prioritize patients, there would be a concrete risk for unfair choices, and that the prevalent \u201cfirst come, first served\u201d principle would lead to many avoidable deaths. Among the drivers of decision for admission to ICU, age, co-morbidities and preexisting functional status were included. The recommendations were criticized as ageist and potentially discriminatory against elderly patients. Looking forward to the next steps, the Italian experience can be relevant to other parts of the world that are yet to see a significant surge of COVID 19: the need for transparent triage criteria and commonly shared values, give the Italian recommendations even greater legitimacy

An ethical algorithm for rationing life sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic

The burning ethical question raised by the COVID-19 pandemic is how to deal fairly and ethically with a large number of patients simultaneously becoming critically unwell. Across the world, in both developed and developing countries, health systems are grappling with the possibility or the reality that the demand for intensive medical care will outstrip availability. There is a need for ethical guidelines on how to allocate treatment, but such guidelines are potentially highly controversial.1 In this commentary, we set out a simple algorithm (Figure 1), including what we take to be the essential ethical principles that ought to guide resource allocation in any country or setting as well as optional elements that will vary between countries depending on the weight placed on different ethical values (Table 1)

Extreme altruism in a pandemic

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2020/04/23/extreme-altruism-in-a-pandemic

Neuropsychiatric Outcomes in UK Military Veterans with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury and Vestibular Dysfunction

Objective: To estimate the frequency of vestibular dysfunction following blunt, blast, and blunt & blast mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and thereon assess the long-term impact of vestibular dysfunction on neurobehavioral function and disability independently of co-morbid psychiatric symptoms. Setting: Combat Stress residential and Veterans’ Outreach drop-in centres for psychological support. Participants: 162 help-seeking UK military veterans. Main measures: Self-reported frequency and severity of mTBI (using the Ohio State Identification Method), Vertigo Symptom Scale, PTSD checklist for DSM5, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory, HIT6, Memory Complaints Inventory, WHO Disability Assessment Scale 2.0. Results: 72% of the sample reported one or more mTBI over their lifetime. Chi-square analyses indicated that vestibular disturbance, which affected 69% of participants, was equally prevalent following blunt (59%) or blast (47%) injury and most prevalent following blunt and blast combined (83%). Mediation analysis indicated that when PTSD, depression and anxiety were taken into account, vestibular dysfunction in participants with mTBI was directly and independently associated with increased postconcussive symptoms and functional disability. Conclusion: Vestibular dysfunction is common after combined blunt and blast mTBI and singularly predictive of poor long-term mental health. From a treatment perspective, vestibular rehabilitation may provide relief from postconcussive symptoms other than dizziness and imbalance