Subject(s)
Disabled Persons , Suicide, Assisted , Humans , Suicide, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence , PatientsABSTRACT
Terminally ill patients in 10 states plus Washington, D.C. have the right to take prescribed medications to end their lives (medical aid in dying). But otherwise-eligible patients with neuromuscular disabilities (ALS and other illnesses) are excluded if they are physically unable to "self-administer" the medications without assistance. This exclusion is incompatible with disability rights laws that mandate assistance to provide equal access to health care. This contradiction between aid-in-dying laws and disability rights laws can force patients and clinicians into violating one or the other, potentially creating an underclass of patients denied medical care that is available to those with other (less physically disabling) terminal illnesses. The immediacy of this issue is demonstrated by a lawsuit in Federal court filed in August 2021, requesting assistance in self-administration for terminally ill patients with neuromuscular diseases. This paper discusses the background of this conflict, the ethical issues at the heart of the dilemma, and recommends potential remedies.
Subject(s)
Suicide, Assisted , Humans , Washington , CanadaABSTRACT
Students with sensory and physical disabilities are underrepresented in medical schools despite the availability of assistive technologies and accommodations. Unfortunately, many medical schools have adopted restrictive "organic" technical standards based on deficits rather than on the ability to do the work. Compelling ethical considerations of justice and beneficence should prompt change in this arena. Medical schools should instead embrace "functional" technical standards that permit accommodations for disabilities and update their admissions policies to promote applications from qualified students with disabilities. Medical schools thus should focus on what students with disabilities can do, rather than what they cannot do, because these students further diversify the health care profession and improve our ability to care for an expanding population of patients with disabilities.
Subject(s)
Beneficence , Disabled Persons , Education, Medical/ethics , School Admission Criteria , Schools, Medical , Social Justice , Students, Medical , Disability Evaluation , Humans , Organizational Policy , Social DiscriminationABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Physician diversity improves care for underserved populations, yet there are few physicians with disabilities. The authors examined the availability of technical standards (TSs) from U.S. medical schools (MD- and DO-granting) and evaluated these relative to intent to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). METHOD: Document analysis was conducted (2012-2014) on U.S. medical schools' TSs for hearing, visual, and mobility disabilities. Primary outcome measures were ease of obtaining TSs, willingness to provide reasonable accommodations, responsibility for accommodations, and acceptability of intermediaries or auxiliary aids. RESULTS: TSs were available for 161/173 (93%) schools. While 146 (84%) posted these on their Web sites, 100 (58%) were located easily. Few schools, 53 (33%), had TSs specifically supporting accommodating disabilities; 79 (49%) did not clearly state policies, 6 (4%) were unsupportive, and 23 (14%) provided no information. Most schools, 98 (61%), lacked information on responsibility for providing accommodations, 33 (27%) provided accommodations, and 10 (6%) had students assume some responsibility. Approximately 40% allowed auxiliary aids (e.g., motorized scooter), but < 10% allowed intermediaries (e.g., sign language interpreter). Supportive schools were more likely to allow accommodations (P < .001), assume responsibility for accommodations (P < .001), and accept intermediaries (P < .002). DO-granting schools were more supportive for students with mobility disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: Most medical school TSs do not support provision of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities as intended by the ADA. Further study is needed to understand how schools operationalize TSs and barriers to achieving ADA standards.
Subject(s)
Disabled Persons/legislation & jurisprudence , Schools, Medical/legislation & jurisprudence , Students, Medical/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Schools, Medical/standards , Schools, Medical/statistics & numerical data , United StatesABSTRACT
This essay re-examines the disability critique of prenatal and pre-implantation screening in light of evidence about the larger context in which fertility and reproductive healthcare is rendered in the U.S. It argues that efforts to identify acceptable criteria for trait-based selection or otherwise impose reasons-based limitations on reproductive choice should be avoided because such limitations tend to perpetuate the discrimination encountered by adults with disabilities seeking fertility and reproductive health services.
Subject(s)
Abortion, Induced , Congenital Abnormalities/diagnosis , Congenital Abnormalities/prevention & control , Reproductive Techniques, Assisted , Selection, Genetic , Abortion, Induced/ethics , Congenital Abnormalities/genetics , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Pregnancy , Preimplantation Diagnosis/ethics , Prenatal Diagnosis/ethics , United StatesSubject(s)
Commerce/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , Insurance Coverage/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/legislation & jurisprudence , Supreme Court Decisions , Contraception , Federal Government , Government Regulation , Humans , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicaid/legislation & jurisprudence , Medically Uninsured/legislation & jurisprudence , Religion , State Government , Taxes/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesSubject(s)
Decision Making/ethics , Developmental Disabilities/complications , Disabled Persons , Ethics Committees , Hysterectomy/legislation & jurisprudence , Intellectual Disability/complications , Parents , Puberty, Precocious/therapy , Quality of Life , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Body Height/drug effects , Child , Child Advocacy , Choice Behavior/ethics , Estrogens/administration & dosage , Ethics, Clinical , Female , Hospitals, Pediatric/ethics , Humans , Hysterectomy/ethics , Mastectomy/ethics , Personal Autonomy , Personhood , Puberty, Precocious/complications , Puberty, Precocious/drug therapy , Puberty, Precocious/surgery , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Terminology as Topic , UncertaintySubject(s)
Asian People , Blepharoplasty/ethics , Parents/psychology , Adolescent , Adoption , Child , Decision Making/ethics , Humans , Unnecessary Procedures/ethicsSubject(s)
Confidentiality , Disclosure , Federal Government , Medical Records , State Government , Confidentiality/ethics , Confidentiality/legislation & jurisprudence , Disclosure/ethics , Disclosure/legislation & jurisprudence , Employment , Government Regulation , Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act , Humans , United StatesABSTRACT
Bioethicists are often interested mostly in national standards and institutions, but state governments have historically overseen a wide range of bioethical issues and share responsibility with the federal government for still others. States ought to have an important role. By allowing for multiple outcomes, the American federal system allows a better fit between public opinion and public policies.