Supporting OB-GYNs in Abortion-Restrictive States-A Playbook for Institutions.

This Viewpoint provides proposed institutional practices, such as medicolegal collaboration and providing materials and resources, to support obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs) in abortion-restrictive states.

Impact of post-Dobbs abortion restrictions on maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the Southeast: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. Many states in the Southeastern United States responded with restrictive policies that limit and criminalize abortion care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the effect of abortion restrictions on maternal-fetal medicine physicians in the Southeastern United States after the Dobbs decision. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative, semistructured interviews with 35 maternal-fetal medicine physicians in 10 Southeastern states between February 2023 and June 2023 were conducted. Our recruitment strategy relied on convenience and snowball sampling. Audio-recorded interviews were analyzed using Dedoose software and a descriptive qualitative approach that incorporated deductive and inductive approaches. RESULTS: Emergent themes were identified, and a conceptual framework was developed on the basis of overarching themes. This study found that abortion laws and external constraints after the Dobbs decision resulted in ethical, professional, and legal challenges for maternal-fetal medicine physicians that led to changes in clinical practice and deviations from patient-centered care. These forced changes resulted in negative effects on maternal-fetal medicine physicians, such as increased fear, hypervigilance, and increased workload. In addition, these changes prompted concerns about health risks and negative emotional effects for patients. Supportive colleagues, hospital systems, and policies were associated with decreased stress, emotional distress, and disruption of healthcare delivery. CONCLUSION: Abortion restrictions in the Southeastern United States limit the ability of maternal-fetal medicine physicians to provide or facilitate abortions in the setting of fetal anomalies and maternal health risks. Maternal-fetal medicine physicians perceived these restrictions to have negative professional and emotional repercussions for themselves and negative effects on patients. Supportive colleagues and clear guidance from hospital systems and departments on how to interpret the laws were protective. Our findings have implications for the maternal-fetal medicine workforce and patient care in the region.

How Should We Allocate Divisible Resources? An Overlooked Question.

AbstractThe ethical allocation of scarce medical resources has received significant attention, yet a key question remains unaddressed: how should scarce, divisible resources be allocated? We present a case from the COVID-19 pandemic in which scarce resources were divided among patients rather than allocated to some patients over others. We assess how widely accepted allocation principles could be applied to this case, and we show how these principles provide insufficient guidance. We then propose alternatives that may help guide decision-making in such cases, and we evaluate the possibility of treating patients equally by dividing resources equally. Resource scarcity is not limited to pandemic situations, and many healthcare resources are divisible. This question-how to allocate these divisible resources-deserves greater attention from bioethics.

Beyond coercion: reframing the influencing other in medically assisted death.

This essay considers how we are to understand the decision to end one's life under medical aid-in-dying (MAID) statutes and the role of influencing others. Bioethical concerns about the potential for abuse in MAID have focused predominantly on the risk of coercion and other forms of undue influence. Most bioethical analyses of relational influences in MAID have been made by opponents of MAID, who argue that MAID is unethical, in part, because it cannot cleanly accommodate relational influences. In contrast, proponents of MAID have downplayed the role of relational influences because they may threaten the pillars of autonomy and voluntariness on which the ethics of MAID rest. Drawing on a case study collected as part of an ethnographic study of MAID in Vermont, we show how relations of care are central to MAID decision-making. Such relations may muddle motives for assisted death, exposing the limits of conventional bioethics thinking on MAID and relational influence. Here, we argue that ethical frameworks for MAID should account for the role of relational influences in decision-making, and acknowledge that relational influences may support, as well as undermine, a decision for MAID. We then outline an evaluative framework for determining whether relational influences are undue that identifies six key domains for consideration: mental competence, authenticity, relationship context, having an adequate range options, financial considerations and irremediability. We conclude by suggesting that social relationships may constitute an important source of value in end-of-life decision-making and not only a liability.

Opening the Door: Rethinking "Difficult Conversations" about Living and Dying with Dementia.

This essay looks closely at metaphors and other figures of speech that often feature in how Americans talk about dementia, becoming part of cultural narratives: shared stories that convey ideas and values, and also worries and fears. It uses approaches from literary studies to analyze how cultural narratives about dementia may surface in conversations with family members or health care professionals. This essay also draws on research on a notable social effect of legalizing medical aid in dying: patients may find it easier to bring up a range of concerns, regardless of whether they have any interest in hastening their own death. The essay proposes that health care professionals rethink an idea prominent within their own culture: that conversations about the end of a person's life are inherently difficult. This framing may make it hard for people facing dementia to bring up their concerns about what lies ahead. We suggest a different way to think about these conversations, using the metaphor of "opening the door" to represent inviting a patient to bring up issues of deepest concern.

Choice in the Context of Dementia: Emerging Issues for Health Care Practice in Aging Societies.

This introduction to the special report "Facing Dementia: Clarifying End-of-Life Choices, Supporting Better Lives" explains why focused attention to dementia is needed in bioethics and in health care practice in a range of settings. It explains how this strongly age-associated condition shapes individual lives over years, revealing inequities in how dementia care is financed. The introduction explains the structure of the report, which consists of five essays, a consolidated set of recommendations from these essays, bibliographies, and other resources. The first essay is a landscape review written for health care professionals to support discussion, debate, and deliberation within professional societies and networks concerning a patient's voluntary choice to hasten their own death in the context of a dementia diagnosis. The landscape review is followed by three essays that suggest how several familiar concepts within care for persons with serious illness should be rethought to better support advance care planning, physician-patient conversations, and access to community-based palliative care and hospice when a person is facing dementia. The final essay presents a bold, practical argument for supporting better lives for people facing dementia, and for dementia caregivers, through primary care, the usual source of care for people with dementia.

US Obstetrician-Gynecologists' Perceived Impacts of Post-Dobbs v Jackson State Abortion Bans.

Importance: Following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in June 2022, 17 US states have functionally banned abortion except in narrow circumstances, and physicians found in violation of these laws face felony charges, loss of their medical license, fines, and prison sentences. Patient impacts are being studied closely, but less research has focused on the consequences for obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs), for whom medically necessary care provision may now carry serious personal and professional consequences. Objective: To characterize perceptions of the impact of abortion restrictions on clinical practice, moral distress, mental health, and turnover intention among US OB-GYNs practicing in states with functional bans on abortion. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included semistructured, remote interviews with OB-GYNs from 13 US states with abortion bans. Volunteer sample of 54 OB-GYNs practicing in states that had banned abortion as of March 2023. Exposure: State abortion bans enacted between June 2022 and March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: OB-GYNs' perceptions of clinical and personal impacts of abortion bans. Results: This study included 54 OB-GYNs (mean [SD] age, 42 [7] years; 44 [81%] female participants; 3 [6%] non-Hispanic Black or African American participants; 45 [83%] White participants) who practiced in general obstetrics and gynecology (39 [72%]), maternal-fetal medicine (7 [13%]), and complex family planning (8 [15%]). Two major domains were identified in which the laws affected OB-GYNs: (1) clinical impacts (eg, delays in care until patients became more sick or legal sign-off on a medical exception to the ban was obtained; restrictions on counseling patients on pregnancy options; inability to provide appropriate care oneself or make referrals for such care); and (2) personal impacts (eg, moral distress; fears and perceived consequences of law violation; intention to leave the state; symptoms of depression and anxiety). Conclusions and relevance: In this qualitative study of OB-GYNs practicing under abortion bans, participants reported deep and pervasive impacts of state laws, with implications for workforce sustainability, physician health, and patient outcomes. In the context of public policies that restrict physicians' clinical autonomy, organization-level supports for physicians are essential to maintain workforce sustainability, clinician health and well-being, and availability of timely and accessible health care throughout the US.

Physicians' Explanatory Models of Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Explanatory models are culturally informed representations of illness that convey understandings of the etiology and expected course of disease. Substantial research has explored lay explanatory models, but examining physicians' clinical explanatory models can also provide insight into patients' understandings of illness because physicians are a foundational source of authoritative knowledge that shapes lay concepts of illness and disease. This study characterized the explanatory models used by pediatric gastroenterologists when explaining inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to children. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 pediatric gastroenterologists across the United States about their clinical communication and explanatory models. We identified two primary explanatory models used to describe immune dysregulation in pediatric IBD: the defense and protection model, which characterizes the immune system as an army that erroneously sees the body as "non-self" and attacks it; and the switch model, which conceptualizes treatment as activating a switch that turns off a faulty immune response. We also identified two models used by some physicians to describe inflammation: the scratch and scrape model, which compares IBD inflammation to scratches or scrapes on the skin; and the bonfire model, which compares inflammation to a fire in need of extinguishing. While the use of militaristic metaphors is pervasive in medicine, describing autoimmunity as a battle against the self may lead children to perceive their body as the enemy. This may be compounded by describing the immune system as "confused" while noting its ongoing protective function. Use of these explanatory models may nevertheless improve patient disease-related knowledge.

Multidimensional stressors and protective factors shaping physicians' work environments and work-related well-being in two large US cities during COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Clinician burnout and poor work-related well-being reached a critical inflection point during the COVID-19 pandemic. This article applies a novel conceptual model informed by the Total Worker Health® approach to identify and describe multilevel stressors and protective factors that affected frontline physicians' work environments and work-related well-being. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of hospital-based physicians from multiple hospital types in Los Angeles and Miami who cared for COVID-19 patients. Semistructured interviews lasting 60-90 min were conducted over Zoom. Interview transcripts were thematically coded using Dedoose qualitative software. RESULTS: The final sample of 66 physicians worked in 20 hospitals. Stressors in the social, political, and economic environment included dealing with the politicization of COVID-19, including vaccine hesitancy; state and federal governmental COVID-19 policies and messaging; and shifting CDC guidance. Employment and labor pattern stressors included the national nursing shortage, different policies for paid time off, furloughs, reduced pay, and layoffs. Organizational-level stressors included institutional policies, staffing constraints and high patient volume (i.e., increased number of cases and longer lengths of stay), and perceived poor leadership. At the individual worker level, stressors included concerns about viral transmission to family, strained personal relationships, and work-life fit, particularly for those with young children. Respondents identified promising protective factors at multiple levels, including responsive state leadership, job security, concrete opportunities to provide input into institutional policy, strong leadership and communication, and feeling cared for by one's institution. CONCLUSION: Findings support a multi-level strategy that acknowledges internal organizational and external factors shaping clinicians' work-related well-being, consistent with the Total Worker Health® approach.

Moral Stress and Moral Distress: Confronting Challenges in Healthcare Systems under Pressure.

Stresses on healthcare systems and moral distress among clinicians are urgent, intertwined bioethical problems in contemporary healthcare. Yet conceptualizations of moral distress in bioethical inquiry often overlook a range of routine threats to professional integrity in healthcare work. Using examples from our research on frontline physicians working during the COVID-19 pandemic, this article clarifies conceptual distinctions between moral distress, moral injury, and moral stress and illustrates how these concepts operate together in healthcare work. Drawing from the philosophy of healthcare, we explain how moral stress results from the normal operations of overstressed systems; unlike moral distress and moral injury, it may not involve a sense of powerlessness concerning patient care. The analysis of moral stress directs attention beyond the individual, to stress-generating systemic factors. We conclude by reflecting on how and why this conceptual clarity matters for improving clinicians' professional wellbeing, and offer preliminary pathways for intervention.

The impact of health inequities on physicians' occupational well-being during COVID-19: A qualitative analysis from four US cities.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe frontline physicians' perceptions of the impact of racial-ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in COVID-19 infection and mortality on their occupational well-being. METHODS: One hundred and forty-five qualitative, semistructured interviews were conducted between February 2021 and June 2022 with hospital medicine, emergency medicine, pulmonary/critical care, and palliative care physicians caring for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in four US cities. RESULTS: Physicians reported encountering COVID-related health disparities and inequities at the societal, organizational, and individual levels. Encountering these inequities, in turn, contributed to stress among frontline physicians, whose concerns revealed how structural conditions both shaped COVID disparities and constrained their ability to protect populations at risk from poor outcomes. Physicians reported feeling complicit in the perpetuation of inequities or helpless to mitigate observed inequities and experienced feelings of grief, guilt, moral distress, and burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Health inequities are an under-acknowledged source of physicians' occupational stress that requires solutions beyond the clinical context.

Hospital Physicians' Perspectives on Occupational Stress During COVID-19: a Qualitative Analysis from Two US Cities.

BACKGROUND: US physicians are at risk for high rates of occupational stress and burnout, which the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified. As approaches targeting physicians' individual resilience have fallen short, researchers are increasingly calling for studies that investigate organizational drivers of stress and burnout. OBJECTIVE: To understand the multi-dimensional systems factors shaping hospital physicians' occupational stress during the pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews conducted in February-October 2021. SETTING: Hospitals in New York City and New Orleans. PARTICIPANTS: A purposive snowball sample of attending physicians and fellows in hospital medicine, emergency medicine, pulmonary critical care, and palliative care who spent at least 4 weeks providing inpatient COVID-19 care beginning in March 2020 was selected. The sample included 40 physicians from 14 hospitals in New York City and 39 physicians from nine hospitals in New Orleans. APPROACH: Descriptive analysis of participants' self-reported perceptions of occupational stress. KEY RESULTS: Participants identified multiple factors shaping their occupational stress including individual-level factors such as age, work experience, and life stage; institutional-level factors such as resource disparities, institutional type and size, and policies; professional-level factors such as informal rationing and medical uncertainty; and societal-level factors such as the federal response, COVID politics, and social inequalities. Stressors within and across these four levels worked in combination to shape physicians' perceptions of occupational stress at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: This article contributes to an emergent literature on systems-based approaches to occupational stress and burnout among physicians by demonstrating the intersections among societal conditions, professional cultures, institutional work environments, and individual stress. Findings from semi-structured interviews suggest that interventions to reduce physician stress and burnout may be more effective if they target systems factors and stressors at multiple levels.

Protecting Practitioners in Stressed Systems: Translational Bioethics and the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 revealed health-care systems in crisis. Intersecting crises of stress, overwork, and poor working conditions have led to workforce strain, under-staffing, and high rates of job turnover. Bioethics researchers have responded to these conditions by investigating the ethical challenges of pandemic response for individuals, institutions, and health systems. This essay draws on pandemic findings to explore how empirical bioethics can inform post-pandemic translational bioethics. Borrowing from the concept of translational science in medicine, this essay proposes that translational bioethics should communicate knowledge about ethical challenges in health-care work to support health systems change. The authors draw from their experience with the Study to Examine Physicians' Pandemic Stress (STEPPS), an interdisciplinary research project that investigates physicians' experiences at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using STEPPS as an example of empirical bioethics with potential for translation, the authors review their research and discuss the ongoing process for translating their findings, focusing on how bioethics research and practice can contribute to supporting the health-care workforce.

Society for Medical Anthropology Statement on Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision.

This statement summarizes key findings from anthropological and related scholarship on the harmful consequences of inadequate abortion access, leading the Society for Medical Anthropology to register profound concern about the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. After circulation to SMA members for input, a finalized version passed a membership vote by an overwhelming margin. This statement complements one produced by the Council for Anthropology and Reproduction, available here.

Dirty Work in Medicine: Understanding U.S. Physicians' Agency in Contested Medical Practices.

Physicians who participate in abortion and medically assisted death in the United States work at the margins of institutionalized medicine. What motivates them to engage in such "dirty work"? This article uses ethnographic materials from two recent projects to analyze physicians' roles as gatekeepers to contested medical services. Abortion and medically assisted death share many similarities: They are both deeply stigmatized practices that are heavily restricted in many U.S. jurisdictions, and which many physicians are reluctant to participate in for moral, religious, or professional reasons. They both also confer medicine with the power to govern life and death decisions through the apparatus of state law. However, state laws operate quite differently on physicians in these two cases, with different outcomes. This comparative analysis demonstrates how dirty work in medicine enrolls the agency and subjectivity of physicians in distinctive ways that may be eclipsed by totalizing biopolitical frameworks. [abortion, medical aid in dying, physicians, agency, biopolitics, United States].

Advancing a Data Justice Framework for Public Health Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Bioethical debates about privacy, big data, and public health surveillance have not sufficiently engaged the perspectives of those being surveilled. The data justice framework suggests that big data applications have the potential to create disproportionate harm for socially marginalized groups. Using examples from our research on HIV surveillance for individuals incarcerated in jails, we analyze ethical issues in deploying big data in public health surveillance. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 24 people living with HIV who had been previously incarcerated in county jails about their perspectives on and experiences with HIV surveillance, as part of a larger study to characterize ethical considerations in leveraging big data techniques to enhance continuity of care for incarcerated people living with HIV. RESULTS: Most participants expressed support for the state health department tracking HIV testing results and viral load data. Several viewed HIV surveillance as a violation of privacy, and several had actively avoided contact from state public health outreach workers. Participants were most likely to express reservations about surveillance when they viewed the state's motives as self-interested. Perspectives highlight the mistrust that structurally vulnerable people may have in the state's capacity to act as an agent of welfare. Findings suggest that adopting a nuanced, context-sensitive view on surveillance is essential. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing trustworthiness through interpersonal interactions with public health personnel is important to reversing historical legacies of harm to racial minorities and structurally vulnerable groups. Empowering stakeholders to participate in the design and implementation of data infrastructure and governance is critical for advancing a data justice agenda, and can offset privacy concerns. The next steps in advancing the data justice framework in public health surveillance will be to innovate ways to represent the voices of structurally vulnerable groups in the design and governance of big data initiatives.

Narratives of prevention and redemption in opioid overdose obituaries.

Obituaries of people who died from an opioid overdose represent a new territory for understanding cultural narratives of the US opioid epidemic. Drawing on textual analysis of 30 opioid overdose obituaries published on Legacy.com between 2015 and 2020, we describe a prototypical narrative conveyed through opioid overdose obituaries, which renders symbolic meaning through the voices of the bereaved. Obituary authors reimagine their subjects as tragic heroes and reconstitute opioid addiction as a curse, plight or affliction that befalls its victims. Many of these obituaries invoke the language of public health, calling for reform, action or general awareness so other families might avoid the havoc and heartbreak of opioid addiction. We argue that obituaries contribute to broader cultural narratives of opioid addiction by reproducing tragic storylines, vindicating and humanising the deceased, framing opioid addiction as a societal, rather than individual, problem, and medicalising addiction as a brain disease beyond a person's control. Obituary texts thus intertwine a personal story with a broader societal health crisis, transforming stories of the deceased into cautionary tales and public health warnings.