Communicating with Muslim parents: "the four principles" are not as culturally neutral as suggested

The “four principles approach” has been popularly accepted as a set of universal guidelines for biomedical ethics. Based on four allegedly trans-cultural principles (respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice), it is supposed to fulfil the need of a ‘culturally neutral approach to thinking about ethical issues in health care’. On the basis of a case-history, this paper challenges the appropriateness of communicating in terms of these four principles with patients with a different background. The case describes the situation in which Muslim parents bring forward that their religion keeps them from consenting to end-of-life decisions by non-religious paediatricians. In a literature analysis, the different meanings and roles of the relevant principles in non-religious and Islamic ethics are compared. In non-religious ethics, the principle of nonmaleficence may be used to justify withholding or withdrawing futile or damaging treatments, whereas Islamic ethics applies this principle to forbid all actions that may harm life. And while the non-religious version of the principle of respect for autonomy emphasises the need for informed consent, the Islamic version focuses on “respect for the patient”. We conclude that the parties involved in the described disagreement may feel committed to seemingly similar, but actually quite different principles. In such cases, communication in terms of these principles may create a conflict within an apparently common conceptual framework. The four principles approach may be very helpful in analysing ethical dilemmas, but when communicating with patients with different backgrounds, an alternative approach is needed that pays genuine attention to the different backgrounds

Clinical problems with the performance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in The Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The characteristics and frequency of clinical problems with the performance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are uncertain. We analyzed data from two studies of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in The Netherlands (one conducted in 1990 and 1991 and the other in 1995 and 1996), with a total of 649 cases. We categorized clinical problems as technical problems, such as difficulty inserting an intravenous line; complications, such as myoclonus or vomiting; or problems with completion, such as a longer-than-expected interval between the administration of medications and death. RESULTS: In 114 cases, the physician's intention was to provide assistance with suicide, and in 535, the intention was to perform euthanasia. Problems of any type were more frequent in cases of assisted suicide than in cases of euthanasia. Complications occurred in 7 percent of cases of assisted suicide, and problems with completion (a longer-than-expected time to death, failure to induce coma, or induction of coma followed by awakening of the patient) occurred in 16 percent of the cases; complications and problems with completion occurred in 3 percent and 6 percent of cases of euthanasia, respectively. The physician decided to administer a letha

Physicians' experiences with euthanasia: a cross-sectional survey amongst a random sample of Dutch physicians to explore their concerns, feelings and pressure

BACKGROUND: Physicians who receive a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide may experience a conflict of duties: the duty to preserve life on the one hand and the duty to relieve suffering on the other hand. Little is known about experiences of physicians with receiving and granting a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. This study, therefore, aimed to explore the concerns, feelings and pressure experienced by physicians who receive requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide. METHODS: In 2016, a cross-sectional study was conducted. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of 3000 Dutch physicians. Physicians who had been working in adult patient care in the Netherlands for the last year were included in the sample (n = 2657). Half of the physicians were asked about the most recent case in which they refused a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide, and half about the most recent case in which they granted a request for euthanasia or assisted suicide. RESULTS: Of the 2657 eligible physicians, 1374 (52%) responded. The most reported reason not to participate was lack of time. Of the respondents, 248 answered questions about a refused euthanasia or assisted suicide request and 245 about a granted EAS request. Concerns about specific aspects of the euthanasia and assisted suicide process, such as the emotional burden of preparing and performing euthanasia or assisted suicide were commonly reported by physicians who refused and who granted a request. Pressure to grant a request was mostly experienced by physicians who refused a request, especial

Ethical advice for an intensive care triage protocol in the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from the Netherlands

At the height of the COVID-19 crisis in the Netherlands a shortness of intensive care beds was looming. Dutch professional medical organizations asked a group of ethicists for assistance in drafting guidelines and criteria for selection of patients for intensive care (IC) treatment in case of absolute scarcity, when medical selection criteria would no longer suffice. This article describes the Dutch context, the process of drafting the advice and reflects on the role of ethicists and lessons learned. We argue that timely interaction between clinical and ethical expertise is necessary since the distinction between medical and non-medical considerations is not as clearcut as sometimes assumed. Furthermore, pragmatic considerations related to the specifics of an epidemic are of importance, for example, in relation to prioritizing health care workers. As a consequence

Argumentation in end-of-life conversations with families in Dutch intensive care units: a qualitative observational study

PurposeIn intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations.MethodA qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families.ResultsSeventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together.ConclusionThis study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin