Current models of shared decision-making are insufficient: The "Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion" offers a defensible way forward.

OBJECTIVES: This paper undertakes a critical examination of the concept of "Shared Decision-Making" (SDM) by exploring current understandings of what is meant by the term. DISCUSSION: In an exploration of SDM, it will become evident that there are significant challenges that can limit shared decision-making's successful implementation in practice. Existing models are examined, and a novel method of SDM is proposed which makes use of a Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion. CONCLUSION: A Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion is a broadly-applicable model of SDM that takes a harm-threshold approach, rather than appealing strictly to best interests. This model avoids or addresses many of the challenges that impede successful implementation of other SDM models. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion aims to define the scope of participant roles in SDM better than existing models, and ensures that the treatments or interventions which are pursued in SDM are chosen from a range of ethically-defensible options.

Is shared decision-making to blame for the provision of ethically inappropriate treatment? Results of a multi-site study exploring physician understanding of the "shared" model of decision making.

Support for the concept of respect for first-person informed consent and patient autonomy, including the negative right of patients to refuse unwanted interventions has grown, but does not generally include a positive right of patients to receive whatever treatment they request or demand without constraint. Despite this, health-care providers in both Canada and the United States are guilty of providing, in their own opinions, futile or probably futile treatments at the request of patients or their substitute decision-makers. The purpose of this study was to examine whether physicians' understanding of the shared model of medical decision-making - shared decision-making, (SDM) - may be among the reasons why some patients receive treatment understood as ethically inappropriate, including those deemed futile, treatments that are not medically indicated, or those that are not in the patient's best interests to receive. A secondary question asked to study participants was whether they believed their professional college allowed, or further, required them to use shared decision-making in their practice. The initial hypothesis of the researcher in this study was that SDM is not well understood by physicians, and that this lack of understanding, combined with other factors to be discussed in the full text, may result in patients receiving ethically-inappropriate treatment. Results suggest support for this hypothesis, and that SDM should be more closely examined if it is to be pursued as a method of decision making.

Ethical failings of CPSO policy and the health care consent act: case review.

End-of-life disputes in Ontario are currently overwhelmingly assessed through the singular lens of patient autonomy. The current dispute resolution mechanism(s) does not adequately consider evidence-based medical guidelines, standards of care, the patient's best interests, expert opinion, or distributive justice. We discuss two cases adjudicated by the Consent and Capacity board of Ontario that demonstrate the over emphasis on patient autonomy. Current health care policy and the Health Care Consent Act also place emphasis on patient autonomy without considering other ethically defensible factors. We argue that current policy and legislation require amendment, and unless there are measures undertaken to modify them, both the quality of care provided and the long-term capabilities of the health care system to remain publicly-funded, comprehensive and equitable, are at stake.

Ethical considerations in the regulation of euthanasia and physician-assisted death in Canada.

On February 6th 2015 the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released their decision on Carter v Canada (Attorney General) to uphold a judgment from a lower court which determined that the current prohibition in Canada on physician-assisted dying violated the s. 7 [Charter of Rights and Freedoms] rights of competent adults whose medical condition causes intolerable suffering. The purpose of this piece is to briefly examine current regulations from Oregon (USA), Belgium, and the Netherlands, in which physician-assisted death and/or euthanasia is currently permitted, as well as from the province of Quebec which recently passed Bill-52, "An Act Respecting End-of-Life Care." We present ethical considerations that would be pertinent in the development of policies and regulations across Canada in light of this SCC decision: patient and provider autonomy, determining a relevant decision-making standard for practice, and explicating challenges with the SCC criteria for assisted-death eligibility with special consideration to the provision of assisted-death, and review of assisted-death cases. [It is not the goal of this paper to address all questions related to the regulation and policy development of euthanasia and assisted death in Canada, but rather to stimulate and guide the conversations in these areas for policy makers, professional bodies, and regulators.].

Reconsidering the ethical permissibility of the use of unregistered interventions against Ebola virus disease.

Ethical considerations for the use of unregistered interventions for Ebola virus disease have sparked considerable debate among academic and clinical ethicists. In August 2014 the World Health Organization (WHO) convened a panel of experts to discuss approaches to the outbreak in West Africa, with the goal of determining "whether it is ethical to use unregistered interventions with unknown adverse effects for possible treatment or prophylaxis". 1 The panel concluded that there would be an ethical imperative to provide such unregistered interventions if specific criteria could be met. This paper evaluates the WHO conclusion and argues that although it may be reasonable to provide unregistered interventions considering the circumstance, there is no clear ethical imperative to do so.

Documentation of capacity and identification of substitute decisionmakers in Ontario.

Documenting capacity assessments and identifying substitute decisionmakers (SDMs) in healthcare facilities is ethically required for optimal patient care. Lack of such documentation has the potential to generate confusion and contention among patients, their family members, and members of the healthcare team. An overview of our research at the Ottawa Hospital and issues that influence the consistency of documentation in the Canadian context are presented here, as well as ideas for the mitigation of these issues and ways to encourage better documentation.