Ethical issues in the substance abusing pain patient

2014 ◽  
pp. 399-407
Author(s):  
Ike Eriator ◽  
Lori Hill Marshall ◽  
Donald Penzien
2010 ◽  
Vol 4;13 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 305-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Giordano

The pain clinician is confronted with the formidable task of objectifying the subjective phenomenon of pain so as to determine the right treatments for both the pain syndrome and the patient in whom the pathology is expressed. However, the experience of pain — and its expression — remains enigmatic. Can currently available evaluative tools, questionnaires, and scales actually provide adequately objective information about the experiential dimensions of pain? Can, or will, current and future iterations of biotechnology — whether used singularly or in combination (with other technologies as well as observational-behavioral methods) — afford objective validation of pain? And what of the clinical, ethical, legal and social issues that arise in and from the use — and potential misuse — of these approaches? Subsequent trajectories of clinical care depend upon the findings gained through the use of these techniques and their inappropriate employment – or misinterpretation of the results they provide — can lead to misdiagnoses and incorrect treatment. This essay is the first of a two-part series that explicates how the intellectual tasks of knowing about pain and the assessment of its experience and expression in the pain patient are constituent to the moral responsibility of pain medicine. Herein, we discuss the problem of pain and its expression, and those methods, techniques, and technologies available to bridge the gap between subjective experience and objective evaluation. We address how these assessment approaches are fundamental to apprehend both pain as an objective, neurological event, and its impact upon the subjective experience, existence, and expectations of the person in pain. In this way, we argue that the right use of technology — together with inter-subjectivity, compassion, and insight — can sustain the good of pain care as both a therapeutic and moral enterprise. Key words: pain, assessment, neurotechnology, biotechnology, neuroethics, medicine


2008 ◽  
Vol 5;11 (10;5) ◽  
pp. 589-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Giordano

In this paper, we propose a constructive approach to an ethics of pain medicine that is animated by a core philosophy of medicine as specific and focal to the uniqueness of pain, the pain patient, and the pain clinician. This philosophy of pain medicine 1) defines the nature of pain, 2) recognizes the variability and subjectivity of its expression in the pain patient, 3) acknowledges and explicates the vulnerabilities rendered by pain, 4) describes the inherent characteristics and asymmetries of the patient-clinician relationship, and 5) defines the ends of pain care. That these ends entail the provision of “good” care links the epistemic domains of pain medicine to its anthropologic focus and ethically sound conduct. We posit that an ethics of pain medicine should define the profession and sustain the practice. Facts establish (the need for) certain duties and rules of pain medicine. These emphasize the duty to self and others, and an appreciation for relational asymmetries, and dictates that those who enter the profession of pain medicine should be generally aligned with this set of core practical and ethical affirmations and duties. To maintain contemporary relevance, rules, duties, and moral reasoning must adjust to changing conditions. Applied ethics shape the practice within the infrastructure of core rules and duties of the profession. An applied ethics of pain medicine must be pragmatic, and therefore, cannot rely upon, or be reduced to, a single principle or ethical system. A number of ethical systems (such as the use of principles, utilitarianism, casuistry, feminist/ care orientations) all have relative merit and potential limitations. We argue that the obligation to recognize ethical issues, and utilize knowledge to best reflect appropriate moral values rests upon the clinician as a moral agent, and therefore advocate the relevance and importance of an agent-based virtue ethics, recognizing that virtue ethics cannot stand alone, but must be employed within a larger system of ethical intuition. Yet, if such a structure of normative and applied ethics is to be realized, moral consideration must guide evaluation of the current system of pain care, and provide direction for the development and implementation of therapeutically and ethically integrative pain medicine for the future. Key words: Pain medicine, normative ethics, applied ethics, deontology, virtue ethics, humanities


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 707-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Peterson ◽  
Adrian M. Owen

In recent years, rapid technological developments in the field of neuroimaging have provided several new methods for revealing thoughts, actions and intentions based solely on the pattern of activity that is observed in the brain. In specialized centres, these methods are now being employed routinely to assess residual cognition, detect consciousness and even communicate with some behaviorally non-responsive patients who clinically appear to be comatose or in a vegetative state. In this article, we consider some of the ethical issues raised by these developments and the profound implications they have for clinical care, diagnosis, prognosis and medical-legal decision-making after severe brain injury.


Pflege ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Monika Bobbert

Pflegeethik als relativ neuer Bereich der angewandten Ethik hat unter anderem die Aufgabe, auf ethische Probleme in der pflegerischen Praxis aufmerksam zu machen und diese zu reflektieren. An einem Fallbeispiel wird gezeigt, dass das pflegerische Vorgehen bei der Ernährung von Frühgeborenen ethische Konflikte bergen kann. Am konkreten Fall werden Fragen der Patientenautonomie und Fürsorge diskutiert, die auch für andere pflegerische Situationen relevant sind. Der Artikel leistet einen Beitrag zur Klärung der spezifischen Inhalte einer auf den Handlungsbereich der professionellen Pflege bezogenen Ethik.


Crisis ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 238-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul W. C. Wong ◽  
Wincy S. C. Chan ◽  
Philip S. L. Beh ◽  
Fiona W. S. Yau ◽  
Paul S. F. Yip ◽  
...  

Background: Ethical issues have been raised about using the psychological autopsy approach in the study of suicide. The impact on informants of control cases who participated in case-control psychological autopsy studies has not been investigated. Aims: (1) To investigate whether informants of suicide cases recruited by two approaches (coroners’ court and public mortuaries) respond differently to the initial contact by the research team. (2) To explore the reactions, reasons for participation, and comments of both the informants of suicide and control cases to psychological autopsy interviews. (3) To investigate the impact of the interviews on informants of suicide cases about a month after the interviews. Methods: A self-report questionnaire was used for the informants of both suicide and control cases. Telephone follow-up interviews were conducted with the informants of suicide cases. Results: The majority of the informants of suicide cases, regardless of the initial route of contact, as well as the control cases were positive about being approached to take part in the study. A minority of informants of suicide and control cases found the experience of talking about their family member to be more upsetting than expected. The telephone follow-up interviews showed that none of the informants of suicide cases reported being distressed by the psychological autopsy interviews. Limitations: The acceptance rate for our original psychological autopsy study was modest. Conclusions: The findings of this study are useful for future participants and researchers in measuring the potential benefits and risks of participating in similar sensitive research. Psychological autopsy interviews may be utilized as an active engagement approach to reach out to the people bereaved by suicide, especially in places where the postvention work is underdeveloped.


Crisis ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn M. Wilson ◽  
Bruce K. Christensen

Background: Our laboratory recently confronted this issue while conducting research with undergraduate students at the University of Waterloo (UW). Although our main objective was to examine cognitive and genetic features of individuals with schizotypal personality disorder (SPD), the study protocol also entailed the completion of various self-report measures to identify participants deemed at increased risk for suicide. Aims and Methods: This paper seeks to review and discuss the relevant ethical guidelines and legislation that bear upon a psychologist’s obligation to further assess and intervene when research participants reveal that they are at increased risk for suicide. Results and Conclusions: In the current paper we argue that psychologists are ethically impelled to assess and appropriately intervene in cases of suicide risk, even when such risk is revealed within a research context. We also discuss how any such obligation may potentially be modulated by the research participant’s expectations of the role of a psychologist, within such a context. Although the focus of the current paper is on the ethical obligations of psychologists, specifically those practicing within Canada, the relevance of this paper extends to all regulated health professionals conducting research in nonclinical settings.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. McGuire ◽  
Michael J. Hogan ◽  
Todd G. Morrison

Abstract. Objective: To factor analyze the Pain Patient Profile questionnaire (P3; Tollison & Langley, 1995 ), a self-report measure of emotional distress in respondents with chronic pain. Method: An unweighted least squares factor analysis with oblique rotation was conducted on the P3 scores of 160 pain patients to look for evidence of three distinct factors (i.e., Depression, Anxiety, and Somatization). Results: Fit indices suggested that three distinct factors, accounting for 32.1%, 7.0%, and 5.5% of the shared variance, provided an adequate representation of the data. However, inspection of item groupings revealed that this structure did not map onto the Depression, Anxiety, and Somatization division purportedly represented by the P3. Further, when the analysis was re-run, eliminating items that failed to meet salience criteria, a two-factor solution emerged, with Factor 1 representing a mixture of Depression and Anxiety items and Factor 2 denoting Somatization. Each of these factors correlated significantly with a subsample's assessment of pain intensity. Conclusion: Results were not congruent with the P3's suggested tripartite model of pain experience and indicate that modifications to the scale may be required.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document