Artificial intelligence in clinical decision-making: Rethinking personal moral responsibility.

Artificially intelligent systems (AISs) are being created by software developing companies (SDCs) to influence clinical decision-making. Historically, clinicians have led healthcare decision-making, and the introduction of AISs makes SDCs novel actors in the clinical decision-making space. Although these AISs are intended to influence a clinician's decision-making, SDCs have been clear that clinicians are in fact the final decision-makers in clinical care, and that AISs can only inform their decisions. As such, the default position is that clinicians should hold responsibility for the outcomes of the use of AISs. This is not the case when an AIS has influenced a clinician's judgement and their subsequent decision. In this paper, we argue that this is an imbalanced and unjust position, and that careful thought needs to go into how personal moral responsibility for the use of AISs in clinical decision-making should be attributed. This paper employs and examines the difference between prospective and retrospective responsibility and considers foreseeability as key in determining how personal moral responsibility can be justly attributed. This leads us to the view that moral responsibility for the outcomes of using AISs in healthcare ought to be shared by the clinical users and SDCs.

Perspectives on the role of the nurse ethicist.

This paper offers four contrasting perspectives on the role of the nurse ethicist from authors based in different areas of world, with different professional backgrounds and at different career stages. Each author raises questions about how to understand the role of the nurse ethicist. The first author reflects upon their career, the scope and purpose of their work, ultimately arguing that the distinction between 'nurse ethicist' and 'clinical ethicist' is largely irrelevant. The second author describes the impact and value that a nurse in an ethics role plays, highlighting the 'tacit knowledge' and 'lived experience' they bring to clinical ethics consultation. However, the second author also warns that the 'nurse ethicist' must be cautious in their approach to avoid being viewed as a resource only for nurses. The third author questions the introduction of additional professional distinctions such as 'nurse ethicist' on the basis that distinctions threaten the creation of egalitarian healthcare systems, while also acknowledging that clinical ethicists ought not strive for objective attachment in their work. In direct contrast, the final author suggests that the nurse ethicist can play a pivotal role in highlighting and addressing ethical challenges that are specific to nurses. These four short pieces raise questions and point to concepts that will be expanded upon and debated throughout this special issue of Nursing Ethics.

Anything Goes? Analyzing Varied Understandings of Assent.

Assent to medical research or treatment may be an intuitively attractive way to address the area between incapacity and capacity that might otherwise be subject to a best interests assessment. Assent has become a widely disseminated concept in law, research, and clinical ethics, but little conceptual work on assent has so far occurred. An exploration of use of assent in treatment and research in children and people with dementia suggests that at least five claims are made on behalf of assent. Since at least some of these may lead to tensions with others, assent requires firmer conceptual underpinning. Whether assent remains primarily a local approach to research in children in the United States, where it appears to fit with legal background conditions, or develops its promise to overturn the dominant, binary, approach to (in)capacity will depend on the strength of future philosophical work to improve the theoretical foundations to assent.

Exploring physician approaches to conflict resolution in end-of-life decisions in the adult intensive care unit: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative research.

INTRODUCTION: Conflict is unfortunately well-documented in the adult intensive care unit (AICU). In the context of end-of-life (EOL) decision-making (ie, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment), conflict commonly occurs when a consensus cannot be reached between the healthcare team and the patient's family on the 'best interests' of the critically ill, incapacitated patient. While existing literature has identified potential methods for conflict resolution, it is less clear how these approaches are perceived and used by stakeholders in the EOL decision-making process. We aim to explore this by systematically reviewing and synthesising the published evidence, which addresses the following research question: what does existing qualitative research reveal about physician approaches to addressing conflict arising in EOL decisions in the AICU? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Peer-reviewed qualitative studies (retrieved from MEDLINE, Project Muse, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and LILACS) examining conflict and dispute resolution in the context of EOL decisions in the AICU setting will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen either all or a randomly selected sample of studies, with a third reviewer independently screening studies of uncertain eligibility. The 'thematic synthesis' approach will be employed to analyse the resulting data. The quality of included papers will be assessed using the 2018 Mixed-Methods Assessment Tool. The 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research' approach will be used to assess our confidence in the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review, as only published data will be included. We anticipate that the findings will be of interest to healthcare professionals working in AICUs and individuals working in bioethics, given the ethically contentious nature of EOL decisions. The findings will be disseminated at academic conferences and through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021193769.

Fallacious, misleading and unhelpful: The case for removing 'systematic review' from bioethics nomenclature.

Attempts to conduct systematic reviews of ethical arguments in bioethics are fundamentally misguided. All areas of enquiry need thorough and informative literature reviews, and efforts to bring transparency and systematic methods to bioethics are to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the raw materials of bioethical articles are not suited to methods of systematic review. The eclecticism of philosophy may lead to suspicion of philosophical methods in bioethics. Because bioethics aims to influence medical and scientific practice it is tempting to adopt scientific language and methods. One manifestation is the increasing innovation in, and use of, systematic reviews of ethical arguments in bioethics. Yet bioethics, as a broadly philosophical area of enquiry, is unsuited to systematic review. Bioethical arguments are evaluative, so notions of quality and bias are inapplicable. Bioethical argument is conceptual rather than numerical, and the classification of concepts is itself a process of argument that cannot aspire to neutrality. Any 'systematic review' of ethical arguments in bioethics thus falls short of that name. Furthermore, labels matter. Although the bioethics research community may find that adopting the language and the outward methods of clinical science offers apparent prospects of credibility, policy influence and funding, we argue that such misdirection carries risks and is unlikely to pay dividends in the long term. Bioethical sources are amenable to the review methods of the social sciences, and it is on these methods that specific methods of bioethics literature review should be built.

Factors affecting decision-making in children with complex care needs: a consensus approach to develop best practice in a UK children's hospital.

BACKGROUND: Children with complex care needs are a growing proportion of the sick children seen in all healthcare settings in the UK. Complex care needs place demands on parents and professionals who often require many different healthcare teams to work together. Care can be both materially and logistically difficult to manage, causing friction with parents. These difficulties may be reduced if common best practice standards and approaches can be developed in this area. OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus approach to the management of complexity among healthcare professionals, we used a modified Delphi process. The process consisted of a meeting of clinical leaders to develop candidate statements, followed by two survey rounds open to all professionals in a UK children's hospital to measure and establish consensus recommendations. RESULTS: Ninety-nine professionals completed both rounds of the survey, 69 statements were agreed. These pertained to seven thematic areas: standardised approaches to communicating with families; processes for interprofessional communication; processes for shared decision-making in the child's best interests; role of the multidisciplinary team; managing professional-parental disagreement and conflict; the role of clinical psychologists; and staff support. Overall, the level of consensus was high, ranging from agreement to strong agreement. CONCLUSIONS: These statements provide a consensus basis that can inform standardised approaches to the management of complexity. Such approaches may decrease friction between parents, children and healthcare professionals.

"A Question of Trust" and "a Leap of Faith"-Study Participants' Perspectives on Consent, Privacy, and Trust in Smart Home Research: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Ubiquitous, smart technology has the potential to assist humans in numerous ways, including with health and social care. COVID-19 has notably hastened the move to remotely delivering many health services. A variety of stakeholders are involved in the process of developing technology. Where stakeholders are research participants, this poses practical and ethical challenges, particularly if the research is conducted in people's homes. Researchers must observe prima facie ethical obligations linked to participants' interests in having their autonomy and privacy respected. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the ethical considerations around consent, privacy, anonymization, and data sharing with participants involved in SPHERE (Sensor Platform for Healthcare in a Residential Environment), a project for developing smart technology for monitoring health behaviors at home. Participants' unique insights from being part of this unusual experiment offer valuable perspectives on how to properly approach informed consent for similar smart home research in the future. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 7 households (16 individual participants) recruited from SPHERE. Purposive sampling was used to invite participants from a range of household types and ages. Interviews were conducted in participants' homes or on-site at the University of Bristol. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Four themes were identified-motivation for participating; transparency, understanding, and consent; privacy, anonymity, and data use; and trust in research. Motivations to participate in SPHERE stemmed from an altruistic desire to support research directed toward the public good. Participants were satisfied with the consent process despite reporting some difficulties-recalling and understanding the information received, the timing and amount of information provision, and sometimes finding the information to be abstract. Participants were satisfied that privacy was assured and judged that the goals of the research compensated for threats to privacy. Participants trusted SPHERE. The factors that were relevant to developing and maintaining this trust were the trustworthiness of the research team, the provision of necessary information, participants' control over their participation, and positive prior experiences of research involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers valuable insights into the perspectives of participants in smart home research on important ethical considerations around consent and privacy. The findings may have practical implications for future research regarding the types of information researchers should convey, the extent to which anonymity can be assured, and the long-term duty of care owed to the participants who place trust in researchers not only on the basis of this information but also because of their institutional affiliation. This study highlights important ethical implications. Although autonomy matters, trust appears to matter the most. Therefore, researchers should be alert to the need to foster and maintain trust, particularly as failing to do so might have deleterious effects on future research.

Principles for pandemics: COVID-19 and professional ethical guidance in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: During the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic, various professional ethical guidance was issued to (and for) health and social care professionals in England and Wales. Guidance can help to inform and support such professionals and their patients, clients and service users, but a plethora of guidance risked information overload, confusion, and inconsistency. METHODS: During the early months of the pandemic, we undertook a rapid review, asking: what are the principles adopted by professional ethical guidance in England and Wales for dealing with COVID-19? We undertook thematic content analysis of the 29 documents that met our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The 29 documents captured 13 overlapping principles: respect, fairness, minimising harm, reciprocity, proportionality, flexibility, working together, inclusiveness, communication, transparency, reasonableness, responsibility, and accountability. CONCLUSIONS: We intend this attempt to collate and outline the prominent principles to be helpful, particularly, for healthcare practice during the COVID-19 pandemic and, hopefully, for future pandemic planning. We also offer some reflections on the guidance and the principles therein. After describing the principles, we reflect on some of the similarities and differences in the guidance, and the challenges associated not only with the specific guidance reviewed, but also with the nature and import of "professional ethical guidance".

The theorisation of 'best interests' in bioethical accounts of decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Best interests is a ubiquitous principle in medical policy and practice, informing the treatment of both children and adults. Yet theory underlying the concept of best interests is unclear and rarely articulated. This paper examines bioethical literature for theoretical accounts of best interests to gain a better sense of the meanings and underlying philosophy that structure understandings. METHODS: A scoping review of was undertaken. Following a literature search, 57 sources were selected and analysed using the thematic method. RESULTS: Three themes emerged. The first placed best interests within the structure of wider theory, noting relationships with consequentialism, deontology, prudential value theory, rights and political philosophy. The second mapped a typology of processes of decision-making, among which best interests was ambiguously positioned. It further indicated factors that informed best interests decision-making, primarily preferences, dignity and quality of life. The final theme considered best interests from a relational perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Characterisation of best interests as strictly paternalist and consequentialist is questionable: while accounts often suggested a consequentialist basis for best interests, arguments appeared philosophically weak. Deontological accounts, found in law and Kantianism, and theories of political liberalism influenced accounts of best interests, with accounts often associating best interests with negative patient preferences (i.e. individual refusals). There was much more emphasis on negative interests than positive interests. Besides preference, factors like dignity and quality of life were held to inform best interests decisions, but generally were weakly defined. To the extent that preferences were unable to inform decision making, decisions were either made by proxy authority or by an intersubjective process of diffuse authority. Differing approaches reflect bifurcations in liberal philosophy between new liberalism and neo-liberalism. Although neither account of authority appears dominant, bias to negative interests suggests that bioethical debate tends to reflect the widespread ascendancy of neo-liberalism. This attitude was underscored by the way relational accounts converged on private familial authority. The visible connections to theory suggest that best interests is underpinned by socio-political trends that may set up frictions with practice. How practice negotiates these frictions remains a key question.

Medical Tourism and the Best Interests of the Critically ill Child in the Era of Healthcare Globalisation.

In this article, we examine emerging challenges to medical law arising from healthcare globalisation concerning disputes between parents and healthcare professionals in the care and treatment of critically ill children. We explore a series of issues emerging in English case law concerning children's medical treatment that are signs of increasing globalisation. We argue that these interrelated issues present distinct challenges to healthcare economics, clinical practice, and the operation of the law. First, social media leverages the emotive aspects of cases; secondly, the Internet provides unfiltered information about novel treatments and access to crowdfunding to pay for them. Finally, the removal of barriers to global trade and travel allows child medical tourism to emerge as the nexus of these issues. These aspects of globalisation have implications for medicine and the law, yet child medical tourism has been little examined. We argue that it affects a range of interests, including children's rights, parents' rights as consumers, and the interests of society in communalised healthcare. Identifying putative solutions and a research agenda around these issues is important. While cases involving critically ill children are complex and emotionally fraught, the interconnectedness of these issues requires the law to engage and respond coherently to the impacts of healthcare globalisation.

Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal.

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common conceptual areas in discussions of (surgical) innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the themes of "purpose" (about drivers of innovation), "place" (about contexts of innovation), "process" (about differentiating innovation), "product" (about tangible and intangible results of innovation) and "person" (about personal factors and viewpoint). These conceptual areas are used in varying-sometimes contradictory-ways in different discussions. Highlighting these conceptual areas of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term "innovation" carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term "innovation" from serious discourse aimed at evaluation and regulation of surgery. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.

End of Life Care: A Scoping Review of Experiences of Advance Care Planning for People with Dementia.

Despite increasing attention given to dementia by international governments and policy makers, the focus of end of life care has been on the dying trajectory of malignant disease. People with severe dementia have complex physical and psychological needs, yet the disease is not always recognised as terminal. Advance Care Planning involving people with dementia and their families can provide opportunities to discuss and later, initiate timely palliative care. We conducted a scoping review of studies exploring decisions associated with the EoLC of people with dementia. Eligible studies had to report on decision making at the end of life and by whom (the dying person, clinician/health professional or relative/family member). Twenty-five eligible studies reported on Advance Care Planning and end of life care decisions for individuals with dementia. The papers highlight several challenges that need to be addressed in order to provide adequate and effective care for people with dementia as they near the end of their life.

Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for Research Performing Organisations: The Bonn PRINTEGER Statement.

This document presents the Bonn PRINTEGER Consensus Statement: Working with Research Integrity-Guidance for research performing organisations. The aim of the statement is to complement existing instruments by focusing specifically on institutional responsibilities for strengthening integrity. It takes into account the daily challenges and organisational contexts of most researchers. The statement intends to make research integrity challenges recognisable from the work-floor perspective, providing concrete advice on organisational measures to strengthen integrity. The statement, which was concluded February 7th 2018, provides guidance on the following key issues: § 1. Providing information about research integrity § 2. Providing education, training and mentoring § 3. Strengthening a research integrity culture § 4. Facilitating open dialogue § 5. Wise incentive management § 6. Implementing quality assurance procedures § 7. Improving the work environment and work satisfaction § 8. Increasing transparency of misconduct cases § 9. Opening up research § 10. Implementing safe and effective whistle-blowing channels § 11. Protecting the alleged perpetrators § 12. Establishing a research integrity committee and appointing an ombudsperson § 13. Making explicit the applicable standards for research integrity.