ABSTRACT
Some physicians refuse to perform life-sustaining interventions, such as tracheostomy, on patients who are very likely to remain permanently unconscious. To explain their refusal, these clinicians often invoke the language of "futility", but this can be inaccurate and can mask problematic forms of clinical power. This paper explores whether such refusals should instead be framed as conscientious objections. We contend that the refusal to provide interventions for patients very likely to remain permanently unconscious meets widely recognized ethical standards for the exercise of conscience. We conclude that conscientious objection to tracheostomy and other life-sustaining interventions on such patients can be ethical because it does not necessarily constitute a form of invidious discrimination. Furthermore, when a physician frames their refusal as conscientious objection, it makes transparent the value-laden nature of their objection and can better facilitate patient access to the requested treatment.
ABSTRACT
Nocebo effects occur when an adverse effect on the patient arises from the patient's own negative expectations. In accordance with informed consent, providers often disclose information that results in unintended adverse outcomes for the patient. While this may adhere to the principle of autonomy, it violates the doctrine of "primum non nocere," given that side-effect disclosure may cause those side effects. In this article we build off previous work, particularly by Wells and Kaptchuk ( 2012 ) and by Cohen ( 2013 ), to suggest ethical guidelines that permit nondisclosure in the case when a nocebo effect is likely to occur on of the basis of nonmaleficence. We accept that that autonomy vis-à-vis informed consent must be forestalled, but salvage much of its role by elaborating a practical clinical approach to postencounter follow-up. In doing so, we reconcile a clinically practicable process of determining conditions of disclosure with long-standing ethical commitments to patients.
