Developing Organisational Diversity Statements through Dialogical Clinical Ethics Support: The Role of the Clinical Ethicist

2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 107-108
Author(s):  
Charlotte Kröger ◽  
◽  
Suzanne Metselaar ◽  
Bert Molewijk ◽  
◽  
...  

"In increasingly pluralist societies, stakeholders in healthcare do not always share a common moral perspective on health, wellbeing or good care. Growing cultural, religious, and sexual diversity among both patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) require healthcare organizations to address these differences and to engage in inclusive and equitable practices. Addressing diversity, however, comes with inherent moral challenges. For example, regarding how to deal with healthcare disparities between minoritized and majoritized patients. Additionally, increasing diversity in the workforce means that HCPs moral perspectives on ‘good care’ are diversifying. Developing diversity statements is an important strategy for healthcare organizations to define their normative ideas, values, and approaches to both care and diversity. To tackle concerns of exclusion and power differences, and to ensure that these statements reflect a common ground among HCPs, healthcare organizations ought to develop diversity statements in an inclusive and participatory way. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and interventions such as Socratic Dialogues can be employed to help healthcare organizations to do so. In this presentation, we (1) argue for taking a participatory approach when supporting healthcare organisations in developing diversity statements, (2) report both on the content and the process of developing a diversity statement through CES and Socratic Dialogues, and (3) maintain that CES that supports processes of joint reflection and learning among stakeholders can be used in such an approach. We will use a case example from practice to illustrate our point. We conclude with several recommendations regarding a participatory CES approach for developing diversity statements. "

Author(s):  
Benita Spronk ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Hans Alma

AbstractThis study investigates the role of worldview in moral case deliberation (MCD). MCD is a form of clinical ethics support which aims to assist caregivers in reflection on moral dilemmas, experienced in daily practice. Bioethicists acknowledge that existential and religious aspects must be taken into account in the analysis of ethical questions, but it remains unclear how these elements are addressed in clinical ethics support. We investigated how facilitators of MCD address worldview in MCD. MCD facilitation is often done by spiritual caregivers, but not in their role as spiritual caregiver. Discussing worldview is no standard part of the procedure in MCD. This study was qualitative, focusing on the views and experiences of the facilitators of MCD. Semi-structured interviews (N = 12) were conducted with facilitators of MCD. Grounded theory was used for analysis. The results show that worldview plays both an explicit and an implicit role in the MCD process. The explicit role concerns the religious beliefs of patients and professionals. This calls for avoiding stereotyping and devoting attention to different visions. The implicit role comes to the fore in addressing core values and spiritual fulfillment. In order to clarify the fundamental nature of values, more explicit attention for worldview might be useful during MCD. However, this should be done with caution as the term ‘worldview’ might be interpreted by participants in terms of religious and personal beliefs, rather than as an invitation to reflect on one’s view of the good life as a whole.


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107092
Author(s):  
Joe Brierley ◽  
David Archard ◽  
Emma Cave

The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees (not to be confused with research ethics committees) has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X ([2020] EWHC 1958 (Fam), [21]–[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Doran ◽  
Jennifer Fleming ◽  
Christopher Jordens ◽  
Cameron L Stewart ◽  
Julie Letts ◽  
...  

Objective To investigate the range, frequency and management of ethical issues encountered by clinicians working in hospitals in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted of a convenience sample of 104 medical, nursing and allied health professionals in two NSW hospitals. Results Some respondents did not provide data for some questions, therefore the denominator is less than 105 for some items. Sixty-two (62/104; 60%) respondents reported occasionally to often having ethical concerns. Forty-six (46/105; 44%) reported often to occasionally having legal concerns. The three most common responses to concerns were: talking to colleagues (96/105; 91%); raising the issue in a group forum (68/105; 65%); and consulting a relevant guideline (64/105; 61%). Most respondents were highly (65/99; 66%) or moderately (33/99; 33%) satisfied with the ethical environment of the hospital. Twenty-two (22/98; 22%) were highly satisfied with the ethical environment of their department and 74 (74/98; 76%) were moderately satisfied. Most (72/105; 69%) respondents indicated that additional support in dealing with ethical issues would be helpful. Conclusion Clinicians reported frequently experiencing ethical and legal uncertainty and concern. They usually managed this by talking with colleagues. Although this approach was considered adequate, and the ethics of their hospital was reported to be satisfactory, most respondents indicated that additional assistance with ethical and legal concerns would be helpful. Clinical ethics support should be a priority of public hospitals in NSW and elsewhere in Australia. What is known about the topic? Clinicians working in hospitals in the US, Canada and UK have access to ethics expertise to help them manage ethical issues that arise in patient care. How Australian clinicians currently manage the ethical issues they face has not been investigated. What does this paper add? This paper describes the types of ethical issues faced by Australian clinicians, how they manage these issues and whether they think ethics support would be helpful. What are the implications for practitioners? Clinicians frequently encounter ethically and legally difficult decisions and want additional ethics support. Helping clinicians to provide ethically sound patient care should be a priority of public hospitals in NSW and elsewhere in Australia.


2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind J McDougall ◽  
Lynn Gillam ◽  
Clare Delany ◽  
Yasmin Jayasinghe

Young children with cancer are treated with interventions that can have a high risk of compromising their reproductive potential. ‘Fertility preservation’ for children who have not yet reached puberty involves surgically removing and cryopreserving reproductive tissue prior to treatment in the expectation that strategies for the use of this tissue will be developed in the future. Fertility preservation for prepubertal children is ethically complex because the techniques largely lack proven efficacy for this age group. There is professional difference of opinion about whether it is ethical to offer such ‘experimental’ procedures. The question addressed in this paper is: when, if ever, is it ethically justifiable to offer fertility preservation surgery to prepubertal children? We present the ethical concerns about prepubertal fertility preservation, drawing both on existing literature and our experience discussing this issue with clinicians in clinical ethics case consultations. We argue that offering the procedure is ethically justifiable in certain circumstances. For many children, the balance of benefits and burdens is such that the procedure is ethically permissible but not ethically required; when the procedure is medically safe, it is the parents’ decision to make, with appropriate information and guidance from the treating clinicians. We suggest that clinical ethics support processes are necessary to assist clinicians to engage with the ethical complexity of prepubertal fertility preservation and describe the framework that has been integrated into the pathway of care for patients and families attending the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, Australia.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 427-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Inguaggiato ◽  
Suzanne Metselaar ◽  
Rouven Porz ◽  
Guy Widdershoven

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document