Sensationalist social media usage by doctors and dentists during Covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: Many doctors and dentists took to social media to raise alarm and/or express professional opinion, dissatisfaction, anger and/or incredulity associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. Although most of these social media posts involved practitioners from abroad, this article explores whether they would attract fitness to practise investigations had they been posted by UK-based medical and dental practitioners. In particular, it asks whether such conduct comes into conflict with the existing professional standards issued by the General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Dental Council (GDC). It questions also whether those guidelines should be updated and/or further clarified in view of the extraordinary circumstances posed by the pandemic. METHOD: An exploratory study was conducted using sensationalist pandemic-related social media posts by doctors and dentists discovered during the first half of 2020 (n = 11). The contents were analysed qualitatively using documentary analysis using coding terms based on the professional standards on social media published by both the GMC and the GDC. The codes generated common and recurring themes that were used to structure discussion. FINDINGS: This study provides a partial insight as to the likely motivations of doctors and dentists to use social media in a manner that may not necessarily lend well to the professional standards expected. In a majority of instances, doctors and dentists who posted social media material with a sensationalist outlook tended to focus on single-issue campaigns pertaining to specific aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic. These issues included controversial commentary on acute shortages of personal protective equipment and attendant occupational risks to clinical staff to Covid-19 infection; criticisms directed towards regulatory bodies in the handling of the pandemic; and professional advice to the general public which was later found to be inaccurate. CONCLUSIONS: Social media offer opportunities for healthcare professionals to play a constructive role in raising awareness, disseminating information, and promoting solidarity in the management of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, doctors and dentists must carefully consider the ethical and professional pitfalls involved in sensationalist social media posts. The GMC and the GDC should, at the same time, regularly update and clarify their social media guidance in response to major global events like a pandemic as well as advances in social media technology.

Covid-19: Refracting decision-making through the prism of resource allocation.

Medical decision-making has, across the history of the NHS, made a transitional journey from a model characterised by paternalism to one which places emphasis on partnership and patient autonomy. This article assesses the extent to which the circumstances generated by the Covid-19 pandemic affect the mode of critical care decision-making. It observes that clinical judgment influenced by protocols, algorithms and resource constraints do not lend themselves to full identification with either of the two frameworks familiar to the NHS. The unique mode of decision-making engendered can only be understood on its own terms.

Is UNESCO's Undergraduate Bioethics Integrated Curriculum (Medical) fit for purpose?

In 2017, UNESCO introduced an Undergraduate Bioethics Integrated Curriculum to be taught in Indian medical schools, with an implied suggestion that it could subsequently be rolled out to medical schools in UNESCO's other member states. Its stated aim is to create ethical awareness from an early stage of a doctor's training by infusing ethics instructions throughout the entire undergraduate medical syllabus. There are advantages to a standardised integrated curriculum where none existed. However, the curriculum as presently drafted risks failing to achieve its laudable aims. There are important lessons to be drawn from UNESCO's First Syllabus for Youth Bioethics Education (2018), which is aimed at schoolchildren and teenagers, and represents a creative, effective and culturally sensitive way to teach bioethics.

Re A (A Child) and the United Kingdom Code of Practice for the Diagnosis and Confirmation of Death: Should a Secular Construct of Death Override Religious Values in a Pluralistic Society?

The determination of death by neurological criteria remains controversial scientifically, culturally, and legally, worldwide. In the United Kingdom, although the determination of death by neurological criteria is not legally codified, the Code of Practice of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is customarily used for neurological (brainstem) death determination and treatment withdrawal. Unlike some states in the US, however, there are no provisions under the law requiring accommodation of and respect for residents' religious rights and commitments when secular conceptions of death based on medical codes and practices conflict with a traditional concept well-grounded in religious and cultural values and practices. In this article, we analyse the medical, ethical, and legal issues that were generated by the recent judgement of the High Court of England and Wales in Re: A (A Child) [2015] EWHC 443 (Fam). Mechanical ventilation was withdrawn in this case despite parental religious objection to a determination of death based on the code of practice. We outline contemporary evidence that has refuted the reliability of tests of brainstem function to ascertain the two conjunctive clinical criteria for the determination of death that are stipulated in the code of practice: irreversible loss of capacity for consciousness and somatic integration of bodily biological functions. We argue that: (1) the tests of brainstem function were not properly undertaken in this case; (2) the two conjunctive clinical criteria set forth in the code of practice cannot be reliably confirmed by these tests in any event; and (3) absent authentication of the clinical criteria of death, the code of practice (in fact, although implicitly rather than explicitly) wrongly invokes a secular definition of death based on the loss of personhood. Consequently, the moral obligation of a pluralistic society to honor and respect diverse religious convictions to the greatest extent possible is being violated. Re A (A Child) is contrasted with the US case of Jahi McMath in which the court accommodated parental religious objection to the determination of neurological death codified in the Uniform Determination of Death Act. We conclude that the legal system in the United Kingdom should not favour a secular definition of death over a definition of death that is respectful of religious values about the inviolability and sanctity of life. We recommend the legal recognition of religious accommodation in death determination to facilitate cultural sensitivity and compassionate care to patients and families in a pluralistic society.

Suicide whilst under GMC's fitness to practise investigation: Were those deaths preventable?

The suicide of doctors under regulatory investigation in the United Kingdom has recently been under scrutiny. Despite a commissioned report into the issues surrounding these deaths, we discuss a variety of procedural and legal lacunae not yet openly considered for reform. We identified that the UK coronial system has in place several legal instruments requiring coroners to report the physician suicides as preventable to the regulatory body, the General Medical Council (GMC). We were unable to identify that these suicides were reported in line with established legislation. We also explored the relationship between the GMC and its registered doctors, concluding that the GMC does indeed have a duty of care towards its members on this important matter and that there should be procedural reform to tackle the inherent risk of suicide whilst under investigation.

Forensic physicians and written evidence: witness statements v. expert reports.

When assisting the courts in criminal proceedings, the work of forensic physicians are leaning more towards the preparation of written evidence rather than the giving of oral evidence in person. For this, they may be asked to serve either as professional witnesses or expert witnesses. These 2 roles have nevertheless been a constant source of confusion among forensic physicians. In view of this, the article aims to highlight the similarities and differences between these 2 roles particularly in relation to the preparation of written evidence. It will take a close look at the forms of written evidence which forensic physicians are expected to produce in those distinct capacities and the attending duties, evidentiary rules and legal liabilities. Through this, the work aspires to assist forensic physicians undertake those responsibilities on a more informed footing.