Extract Health care providers already enjoy broad rights — perhaps too broad — to follow their guiding moral or religious tenets when it comes to sterilization and abortion. An expansion of those rights is unwarranted. . . .Physicians should support an ethic that allows for all legal options, even those they would not choose. Federal laws may make room for the rights of conscience, but health care providers — and all those whose jobs affect patient care — should cast off the cloak of conscience when patients’ needs demand it.
Abstract Background: Patient autonomy has been promoted as the most important principle to guide difficult clinical decisions. To examine whether practising physicians indeed value patient autonomy above other considerations, physicians were asked to weight patient autonomy against three other criteria that often influence doctors’ decisions. Associations between physicians’ religious characteristics and their weighting of the criteria were also examined.
Methods: Mailed survey in 2007 of a stratified random sample of 1000 US primary care physicians, selected from the American Medical Association masterfile. Physicians were asked how much weight should be given to the following: (1) the patient’s expressed wishes and values, (2) the physician’s own judgment about what is in the patient’s best interest, (3) standards and recommendations from professional medical bodies and (4) moral guidelines from religious traditions.
Results: Response rate 51% (446/879). Half of physicians (55%) gave the patient’s expressed wishes and values “the highest possible weight”. In comparative analysis, 40% gave patient wishes more weight than the other three factors, and 13% ranked patient wishes behind some other factor. Religious doctors tended to give less weight to the patient’s expressed wishes. For example, 47% of doctors with high intrinsic religious motivation gave patient wishes the “highest possible weight”, versus 67% of those with low (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.3 to 0.8).
Conclusions: Doctors believe patient wishes and values are important, but other considerations are often equally or more important. This suggests that patient autonomy does not guide physicians’ decisions as much as is often recommended in the ethics literature.
Rebecca J. Cook, Monica 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.
Abstract The essay opens with some background information about the context of euthanasia in Belgium. It proceeds by discussing the Belgian law on euthanasia and concerns about the law, its interpretations and implementation. Finally, the major developments and controversies since the law came into effect are discussed. Suggestions as to how to improve the Belgian law and circumscribe the practice of euthanasia are made, urging Belgian legislators and the medical establishment to reflect and study so as to prevent potential abuse of vulnerable patients.
The article’s methodology is based on critical review of the literature supplemented by interviews I conducted in Belgium with leading scholars and practitioners in February 2003 and February 2005. The interviews were conducted in English, usually in the interviewees’ offices. The interviews were semi-structured. I began with a list of twenty-four questions but did not insist on answers to all of them if I saw that the interviewee preferred to speak about subjects that were not included in the original questionnaire. The length of interviews varied from one to two and a half hours. After completing the first draft I sent the manuscript to my interviewees as well as to some leading experts for critical review and comments. The comments received were integrated into this final version of the essay. In 2008, while writing the final draft, I approached my interviewees and some other well-known experts and invited their comments and updates. Responses received by mid-January 2009 were integrated into the article.
Abstract • Laws limiting access to abortion services do not reduce the number of abortions, only their safety.
• Governments of countries are obligated to collect official statistics on the number of abortions and their health effects.
• Where statistics show deficiencies in the delivery of abortion services, governments are obligated to remedy the problem.
• Governments are obligated to ensure that women, irrespective of age or other socio-demographic factors, have transparent access to abortion counselling and services where they are legal.
Antonio Bernabé-Ortiz, Peter J White, Cesar P Carcamo, James P Hughes, Marco A Gonzales, Patricia J Garcia, Geoff P Garnett, King K Holmes
Canadian Medical Association Journal
Abstract Background: Clandestine induced abortions are a public health problem in many developing countries where access to abortion services is legally restricted. We estimated the prevalence and incidence of, and risk factors for, clandestine induced abortions in a Latin American country. Methods: We conducted a large population-based survey of women aged 18–29 years in 20 cities in Peru. We asked questions about their history of spontaneous and induced abortions, using techniques to encourage disclosure.Interpretation: The incidence of clandestine, potentially unsafe induced abortion in Peru is as high as or higher than the rates in many countries where induced abortion is legal and safe. The provision of contraception and safer- sex education to those who require it needs to be greatly improved and could potentially reduce the rate of induced abortion.
Journal’s Extract Discussions of appeals to conscience by healthcare professionals typically focus on situations in which they object to providing a legal and professionally permitted service, such as abortion, sterilization, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception, and organ retrieval pursuant to donation after cardiac death. “Negative claims of conscience” will designate such appeals to conscience. When healthcare professionals advance a negative claim of conscience, they do so to secure an exemption from ethical, professional, institutional, and/or legal obligations or requirements to provide a healthcare service.
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.
