Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
2.
J Clin Ethics ; 33(3): 225-235, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36137205

ABSTRACT

This article discusses clinical ethics consultation (CEC), and thereby ethics support services in the Canadian context. Commonalities and differences between the three models of ethics support and CEC shared in this article are identified, set within the broader context of the Canadian healthcare system, accreditation, and professionalization of practicing healthcare ethicists.


Subject(s)
Ethicists , Ethics Consultation , Canada , Delivery of Health Care , Ethics, Clinical , Humans
5.
Am J Bioeth ; 16(9): 46-7, 2016 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27471942

Subject(s)
Ethical Theory , Humans
6.
Surg Innov ; 19(4): 353-63, 2012 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22228757

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Management of the open abdomen (OA) is challenging for surgeons and requires experienced medical teamwork. The need for improvements in temporary abdominal closure methods has led to the development of a negative-pressure therapy (NPT; ABThera OA NPT, KCI USA, Inc, San Antonio, TX). METHOD: The authors present a 19-patient case series documenting their use of NPT for OA management in nontraumatic surgery. All received NPT until the fascia was considered ready for closure. RESULTS: Of 19 patients, 17 (89.5%) achieved fascial closure with a Kaplan-Meier (KM) median time to closure of 6 days. Mean hospital and intensive care unit stays were 32.1 and 26.6 days, respectively. During their hospitalization, 5 patients (26.3%) died, with a KM median time to mortality of 53 days. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate effective use of NPT for managing the OA in critically ill patients, and this has led the authors to use it in their general surgery practice.


Subject(s)
Abdomen/surgery , Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques , Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies
7.
Bioethics ; 23(9): 486-96, 2009 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19788646

ABSTRACT

Ethical beliefs may vary across cultures but there are things that must be valued as preconditions to any cultural practice. Physical and mental abilities vital to believing, valuing and practising a culture are such preconditions and it is always important to protect them. If one is to practise a distinct culture, she must at least have these basic abilities. Access to basic healthcare is one way to ensure that vital abilities are protected. John Rawls argued that access to all-purpose primary goods must be ensured. Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum claim that universal capabilities are what resources are meant to enable. Len Doyal and Ian Gough identify physical health and autonomy as basic needs of every person in every culture. When we disagree on what to prioritize, when resources to satisfy competing demands are scarce, our common needs can provide a point of normative convergence. Need-based rationing, however, has been criticized for being too indeterminate to give guidance for deciding which healthcare services to prioritize and for tending to create a bottomless-pit problem. But there is a difference between needing something (first-order need) and needing to have the ability to need (second-order need). Even if we disagree about which first-order need to prioritize, we must accept the importance of satisfying our second-order need to have the ability to value things. We all have a second-order need for basic healthcare as a means to protect our vital abilities even if we differ in what our cultures consider to be particular first-order needs.


Subject(s)
Attitude to Health , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Cultural Diversity , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Health Services Accessibility/ethics , Moral Obligations , Needs Assessment/ethics , Personal Autonomy , Humans , Social Values
8.
Bioethics ; 21(8): 426-38, 2007 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17845449

ABSTRACT

Application of egalitarian and prioritarian accounts of health resource allocation in low-income countries have both been criticized for implying distribution outcomes that allow decreasing/undermining health gains and for tolerating unacceptable standards of health care and health status that result from such allocation schemes. Insufficient health care and severe deprivation of health resources are difficult to accept even when justified by aggregative efficiency or legitimized by fair deliberative process in pursuing equality and priority oriented outcomes. I affirm the sufficientarian argument that, given extreme scarcity of public health resources in low-income countries, neither health status equality between populations nor priority for the worse off is normatively adequate. Nevertheless, the threshold norm alone need not be the sole consideration when a country's total health budget is extremely scarce. Threshold considerations are necessary in developing a theory of fair distribution of health resources that is sensitive to the lexically prior norm of sufficiency. Based on the intuition that shares must not be taken away from those who barely achieve a minimal level of health, I argue that assessments based on standards of minimal physical/mental health must be developed to evaluate the sufficiency of the total resources of health systems in low-income countries prior to pursuing equality, priority, and efficiency based resource allocation. I also begin to examine how threshold sensitive health resource assessment could be used in the Philippines.


Subject(s)
Health Care Rationing/ethics , Health Priorities/ethics , Health Services/supply & distribution , Human Rights , Health Care Rationing/economics , Humans
9.
Bioethics ; 19(5-6): 550-64, 2005 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16425490

ABSTRACT

The discussion on ethical issues, it is said, should not be confined to experts but should be extended to patients and local communities, because of the real need to engage stakeholders and non-stakeholders alike not only in carrying out any biomedical research project, but also in the drafting and legislation of bioethics instruments. Several local and inter-country consultations have already been conducted in furtherance of this goal, but there is much left to be desired in them. The consultations may have helped in articulating local principles, but not in making the instruments embody these principles. As such, instruments turn incompossible, i.e. the principles and actions they legitimate are not performable. In an ethnographic study conducted in the Philippines, for example, paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Declaration of Helsinki and CIOMS guidelines 8 and 15 are construed as not only contradictory to one another but also to local principles. This problem can be solved by taking deliberate steps to ensure that consultations are grounded in ethnographic data about local principles, which the instruments would embody. A steering committee can be of help in gathering ethnographic data, in conducting consultations at the local level, and in providing a venue for discourse on various bioethical issues.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Cultural Diversity , Guidelines as Topic , Helsinki Declaration , Human Experimentation/standards , International Cooperation , Anthropology, Cultural , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Developing Countries , Ethics, Research , Human Experimentation/ethics , Humans , Philippines/ethnology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...