Abstract The influence of conscience on nurses in terms of guilt has frequently been described but its impact on care has received less attention. The aim of this study was to describe nurses’ conceptions of the influence of conscience on the provision of inpatient care. The study employed a phenomenographic approach and analysis method. Fifteen nurses from three hospitals in western Sweden were interviewed. The results showed that these nurses considered conscience to be an important factor in the exercise of their profession, as revealed by the descriptive categories: conscience as a driving force; con- science as a restricting factor; and conscience as a source of sensitivity. They perceived that conscience played a role in nursing actions involving patients and next of kin, and was an asset that guided them in their efforts to provide high quality care.
Extract It is doubtful that moral distress can ever be eradicated from healthcare settings. As increasing evidence accumulates to support the damaging effects associated with this phenomenon over time, however, interventions to decrease moral distress and moral residue become more urgently -needed. The crescendo effect model focuses attention on moral distress and moral residue and the relationships between them. . . . Both providers and healthcare systems need to acknowledge the repetitive nature of morally distressing events, such as prolonged aggressive treatment at the EOL, that occur in clinical settings. The crescendo effect highlights the crushing blow to professional integrity that nurses, physicians, and other disciplines have to manage on a daily basis in settings where moral distress goes unrecognized and unaddressed. It is not appropriate to expect highly skilled, dedicated, and caring healthcare professionals to be repeatedly exposed to morally distressing situations when they have little power to change the system and little acknowledgment of these experiences as personally damaging or career compromising. As evidence for the crescendo effect and its consequences accumulates, healthcare professionals, insurers, patients, and healthcare systems must not assume that damaged moral integrity is an acceptable, natural consequence that must be borne by healthcare providers.
Abstract Antibiotic resistance menaces the population as a dire public health threat and costly social problem. Recent proposals to combat antibiotic resistance focus to a large degree on supply side approaches. Suggestions include tinkering with patent rights so that pharmaceutical companies have greater incentives to discover novel antibiotics as well as to resist overselling their newer drugs already on market. This Article argues that a primarily supply side emphasis unfortunately detracts attention from physicians’ important demand side influences. Physicians have a vital and unavoidably necessary role to play in ensuring socially optimal access to antibiotics. Dismayingly, physicians’ management of the antibiotic supply has been poor and their defense of population health tepid at best. Acting as a prudent steward of the antibiotic supply often seems to be at odds with a physician’s commonly understood fiduciary duties, ethical obligations, and professional norms, all of which traditionally emphasize the individual health paradigm as opposed to population health responsibilities. Meanwhile, physicians face limited incentives for antibiotic conservation from other sources, such as malpractice liability, regulatory standards, and reimbursement systems. While multifaceted efforts are needed to combat antibiotic resistance effectively, physician gatekeeping behavior should become a priority area of focus. This Article considers how health law and policy tools could favorably change the incentives physicians face for antibiotic conservation. A clear lesson from the managed care reform battles of the recent past is that interventions, to have the best chance of success, need to respect physician interest in clinical autonomy and individualized medicine even if, somewhat paradoxically, vigorously promoting population health perspectives. Also, physicians’ legal and ethical obligations need to be reconceptualized in the antibiotic context in order to better support gatekeeping in defense of population health. The principal recommendation is for increased use of financial incentives to reward physicians for compliance with recommended guidelines on antibiotic prescribing. Although not a panacea, greater experimentation with financial incentives can provide a much needed jump-start to physician interest in antibiotic conservation and likely best address physicians’ legitimate clinical autonomy concerns.
Rebecca J Cook, Mónica Arango Olaya, Bernard M Dickens
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
Abstract The Constitutional Court of Colombia has issued a decision of international significance clarifying legal duties of providers, hospitals, and healthcare systems when conscientious objection is made to conducting lawful abortion. The decision establishes objecting providers’ duties to refer patients to non-objecting providers, and that hospitals, clinics, and other institutions have no rights of conscientious objection. Their professional and legal duties are to ensure that patients receive timely services. Hospitals and other administrators cannot object, because they do not participate in the procedures they are obliged to arrange. Objecting providers, and hospitals, must maintain knowledge of non-objecting providers to whom their patients must be referred. Accordingly, medical schools must adequately train, and licensing authorities approve, non-objecting providers. Where they are unavailable, midwives and perhaps nurse practitioners may be trained, equipped, and approved for appropriate service delivery. The Court’s decision has widespread implications for how healthcare systems must accommodate conscientious objection and patients’ legal rights.
Journal Extract This Educational Bulletin outlines delivery systems and contraceptive formulations, summarizes advances in emergency contraception and reviews the effects of hormonal contraception on cancer risks, cardiovascular disease, and bone.
Abstract BACKGROUND: For over 30 years, pharmacists have exercised the right to dispense medications in accordance with moral convictions based upon a Judeo-Christian ethic. What many of these practitioners see as an apparent shift away from this time-honored ethic has resulted in a challenge to this right.
OBJECTIVE: To review and analyze pharmacy practice standards, legal proceedings, and ethical principles behind conflicts of conscientious objection in dispensing drugs used for emergency contraception.
DATA SOURCES: We first searched the terms conscience and clause and Plan B and contraception and abortion using Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft Networks (2006-September 26, 2008). Second, we used Medscape to search professional pharmacy and other medical journals, restricting our terms to conscience, Plan B, contraceptives, and abortifacients. Finally, we employed Loislaw, an online legal archiving service, and did a global search on the phrase conscience clause to determine the status of the legal discussion.
DATA SYNTHESIS: To date, conflicts in conscientious objection have arisen when a pharmacist believes that dispensing an oral contraceptive violates his or her moral understanding for the promotion of human life. Up to this time, cases in pharmacy have involved only practitioners from orthodox Christian faith communities, primarily devout Roman Catholics. A pharmacist’s right to refuse the dispensing of abortifacients for birth control according to moral conscience over against a woman’s right to reproductive birth control has created a conflict that has yet to be reconciled by licensing agents, professional standards, or courts of law.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of prominent conflicts suggests that the underlying worldviews between factions make compromise improbable. Risks and liabilities are dependent upon compliance with evolving state laws, specific disclosure of a pharmacist’s moral objections, and professionalism in the handling of volatile situations. Objecting pharmacists and their employers should have clear policies and procedures in place to minimize workplace conflicts and maximize patient care.
Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to focus on barriers, controversy and perceived risk associated with use of emergency contraception (EC) after unprotected sexual intercourse.
Design and method: Data were extracted from the literature of the MEDLINE database service. Original articles, surveys, clinical trials and investigations are considered for this review.
Results: After the introduction of over-the-counter and advance prescription provisions for easy access to EC, the rural–urban disparity in availability of EC poses a barrier to use of EC for rural dwellers. The socio-economically weaker section of the population is unable to purchase EC because of low or no income, although there is mounting pressure by the State for prevention of unintended pregnancy by use of EC. Some healthcare providers have objected to provide EC to the patient on the grounds of their conscience and morality. Some providers and users have also expressed concerns about the possibility of increase in irresponsible sexual behaviour because of easy access to EC. There may be some truth in their apprehension because nearly 3.2 million unintended pregnancies occur annually despite various contraceptive options available in USA and the extensive use of EC is directly proportional to the volume of unprotected sexual intercourse, which is too directly proportional to the quantum of risk for contacting sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/AIDS.
Conclusions: Emergency contraception is a one-off postcoital procedure and not to be opted after every sexual intercourse. Controversy about EC may be resolved if it is used within this limit. Extensive use of EC may increase risk for contacting STIs/AIDS.
Extract Physicians should not lend their medical expertise to the state to make executions more palatable to the public, even by advising on drug protocols, doses, and routes of administration. Even physicians who support the death penalty should stay out of its execution, because the problem that the state seeks to solve by using physicians is one of the state’s own making by its refusal to abolish capital punishment and its insistence on execution by lethal injection.
Abstract The analysis of a dispute can focus on either interests, rights, or power. Commentators often frame the conflict over conscience in clinical practice as a dispute between a patient’s right to legally available medical treatment and a clinician’s right to refuse to provide interventions the clinician finds morally objectionable. Multiple sources of unresolvable moral disagreement make resolution in these terms unlikely. One should instead focus on the parties’ interests and the different ways in which the health care delivery system can accommodate them. In the specific case of pharmacists refusing to dispense emergency contraception, alternative systems such as advanced prescription, pharmacist provision, and over-the-counter sales may better reconcile the client’s interest in preventing unintended pregnancy and the pharmacist’s interest in not contravening his or her conscience. Within such an analysis, the ethicist’s role becomes identifying and clarifying the parties’ morally relevant interests.
Nihon Ishigaku Zasshi, Journal of Japanese History of Medicine
Abstract This article introduces the life of Shomatsu Yokoyama ( 1913-1992), a physiologist and military doctor, to the reader. During the Sino-Japanese war, Yokoyama disobeyed orders given by his superior officer to conduct inhumane medical experiments on humans. Not only in Unit 731, but also in other units, many military doctors were involved in medical crimes against residents of the areas invaded by the Japanese Army. In human living-body experiments and vivisections were widely conducted at that time. There were, however, a small number of researchers who did not follow the orders to perform human body experiments. Highlighting the life of such a rare researcher for the purpose of ascertaining the reason for his noncompliance with the order will provide us with insights on medical ethics.
