scholarly journals Clinical Ethics Consultation in Neurology – a case series

BMC Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Ilse ◽  
Bernd Alt-Epping ◽  
Albrecht Günther ◽  
Jan Liman ◽  
Alfred Simon

Abstract Background The concept of clinical ethics consultation (CECs) was implemented to provide support in ethical controversies in clinical settings and are offered in at least every second hospital in Germany. Neurological disorders often require complex decision-making. The aims of this study were to determine which situations lead to CEC in neurology and to investigate the influence of the individual patient’s wishes on the recommendation. Methods Standardised CEC protocols in the years 2011 to 2017 at the University Hospitals of Goettingen and Jena were retrospectively surveyed. The contents were categorised along existing protocol templates of CEC scenarios and subsequently paraphrased and reduced to significant meanings. Results 27 CEC scenarios which were facilitated by various professional disciplines were reviewed. Stroke was the most frequent underlying condition. Nearly all patients were not able to consent. Mostly, the relatives acted as representatives or health advocates. In 67 % of cases, a sense of conflict triggered a CEC; in 33 % a sense of uncertainty was the reason for the CEC request. In 21 CEC scenarios, a recommendation was reached in consensus with all parties involved. In 59 % of cases, a decision was made to continue medical therapy. In seven cases, the patient’s wishes led to a limitation of therapy, while in just two cases this decision was made primarily relying on the patient’s best interest. In only 13 % of cases, a valid advance directive led to respective therapeutic consequences. Conclusions CEC is feasible for consensus-finding not only in conflicts, but also in situations of therapeutic uncertainty in neurology. There is a special importance of the patient’s wishes in decision-making in neurology. However, only in a few cases were advance directives precise and specific enough to have sufficient and decisive weight in therapeutic decision-making.

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 308-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK D. FOX ◽  
GLENN McGEE ◽  
ARTHUR CAPLAN

Clinical bioethics is big business. There are now hundreds of people who “do” bioethics in community and university hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation and home care settings, and some (though quite a few less) who play the role of clinical ethics consultant to transplant teams, managed care companies, and genetic testing firms. Still, there is as much speculation about what clinically active bioethicists actually do as there was ten years ago. Various commentators have pondered the need for training standards, credentials, “certification” exams, and malpractice insurance for ethicists engaged in clinical consultation. Much of the discussion seems to accept an implicit presumption that all clinical ethics consultation practices look pretty much alike. But is this accurate? What do clinical ethicists do, how and where do they do it, and what kind of clinical ethics is useful in the hospital and in other settings?


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eirini Rari ◽  
Véeronique Fournier

The Clinical ethics centre in Paris offers its services equally to doctors and patients/proxies. Its primary goal is to re-equilibrate doctor-patient roles through giving greater voice to patients individually in medical decisions. Patients are present at virtually all levels, initiating consults, providing their point of view and receiving feedback. The implications of patients’ involvement are threefold. At an operational level, decision-making is facilitated by repositioning the debate on ethical grounds and introducing a dynamic of decisional partnership, although contact with patients can make it difficult to deny their demands and set the limits of our role. Ethically, it reinforces patients’ autonomy and grants them a place of veritable ethics ‘actors’, with the danger that this may become excessively autonomy oriented. Finally, at a collective level, the programme fulfils its political purpose in promoting patients’ rights and the ideal of démocratie sanitaire, but complicates balancing individual demands with collective values.


1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 351-357
Author(s):  
Edward Rudin

Fox, McGee, and Caplan's “Paradigms for Clinical Ethics Consultation Practice”, in the Summer 1998 issue of CQ, evoked memories and an image.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-79
Author(s):  
Aleksandra E. Olszewski ◽  
Maya Scott ◽  
Arika Patneaude ◽  
Elliott M. Weiss ◽  
Aaron Wightman

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 649-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa M. Rasmussen

A major obstacle to broad support of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) is suspicion regarding the nature of the moral expertise it claims to offer. The suspicion seems to be confirmed when the field fails to make its moral expertise explicit. In this vacuum, critics suggest the following:(1)Clinical ethics consultation's legitimacy depends on its ability to offer an expertise in moral matters.(2)Expertise in moral matters is knowledge of a singular moral truth which applies to everyone.(3)The claim that a clinical ethics consultant can offer knowledge of a singular moral truth in virtue of her professional training is absurd, false, or gravely immoral.Therefore,(4)The field is illegitimate.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariba Asghari ◽  
Alireza Parsapoor ◽  
Khorshid Vaskooi ◽  
Saeedeh Saeedi Tehrani

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document