Pediatric Discharge From the Emergency Department Against Medical Advice.

In this Ethics Rounds we present a conflict regarding discharge planning for a febrile infant in the emergency department. The physician believes discharge would be unsafe and would constitute a discharge against medical advice. The child's mother believes her son has been through an already extensive and painful evaluation and would prefer to monitor her well-appearing son closely at home with a safety plan and a next-day outpatient visit. Commentators assess this case from the perspective of best interest, harm-benefit, conflict management, and nondiscriminatory care principles and prioritize a high-quality informed consent process. They characterize the formalization of discharge against medical advice as problematic. Pediatricians, a pediatric resident, ethicists, an attorney, and mediator provide a range of perspectives to inform ethically justifiable options and conflict resolution practices.

Conscientious object in nursing: Regulations and practice in two European countries.

BACKGROUND: The concept of conscientious objection is well described; however, because of its nature, little is known about real experiences of nursing professionals who apply objections in their practice. Extended roles in nursing indicate that clinical and value-based dilemmas are becoming increasingly common. In addition, the migration trends of the nursing workforce have increased the need for the mutual understanding of culturally based assumptions on aspects of health care delivery. AIM: To present (a) the arguments for and against conscientious objection in nursing practice, (b) a description of current regulations and practice regarding conscientious objection in nursing in Poland and the United Kingdom, and (c) to offer a balanced view regarding the application of conscientious objection in clinical nursing practice. DESIGN: Discussion paper. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Ethical guidelines has been followed at each stage of this study. FINDINGS: Strong arguments exist both for and against conscientious objection in nursing which are underpinned by empirical research from across Europe. Arguments against conscientious objection relate less to it as a concept, but rather in regard to organisational aspects of its application and different mechanisms which could be introduced in order to reach the balance between professional and patient's rights. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Debate regarding conscientious objection is vivid, and there is consensus that the right to objection among nurses is an important, acknowledged part of nursing practice. Regulation in the United Kingdom is limited to reproductive health, while in Poland, there are no specific procedures to which nurses can apply an objection. The same obligations of those who express conscientious objection apply in both countries, including the requirement to share information with a line manager, the patient, documentation of the objection and necessity to indicate the possibility of receiving care from other nurses. Using Poland and the United Kingdom as case study countries, this article offers a balanced view regarding the application of conscientious objection in clinical nursing practice.

Is conscientious objection incompatible with healthcare professionalism?

Is conscientious objection (CO) necessarily incompatible with the role and duties of a healthcare professional? An influential minority of writers on the subject think that it is. Here, we outline the positive case for accommodating CO and examine one particular type of incompatibility claim, namely that CO is fundamentally incompatible with proper healthcare professionalism because the attitude of the conscientious objector exists in opposition to the disposition (attitudes and underlying character) that we should expect from a 'good' healthcare professional. We ask first whether this claim is true in principle: what is the disposition of a 'good' healthcare professional, and how does CO align with or contradict it? Then, we consider practical compatibility, acknowledging the need to identify appropriate limits on the exercise of CO and considering what those limits might be. We conclude that CO is not fundamentally incompatible - either in principle or in practice - with good healthcare professionalism.

Phenomenological study exploring ethics in prehospital research from the paramedic's perspective: experiences from the Paramedic-2 trial in a UK ambulance service.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to investigate paramedics' views of ethics and research, drawing on experiences from Paramedic-2, a randomised controlled trial comparing epinephrine and placebo in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: An interpretative phenomenological approach was adopted. A purposive sample of paramedics (n=6) from North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust were invited to a semi-structured, in-depth interview. RESULTS: Three superordinate themes emerged: (1) morality, (2) emotion and (3) equipoise. Some viewed Paramedic-2 as an opportunity to improve OHCA outcomes for the many, viewing participation as a moral obligation; others viewed the study as unethical, equating participation with immoral behaviour. Morality was a motivator to drive individual action. Positive and negative emotions were exhibited by the paramedics involved reflecting the wider view each paramedic held about trial participation. Those morally driven to participate in Paramedic-2 discussed their pride in being associated with the trial, while those who found participation unethical, discussed feelings of guilt and regret. Individual experience and perceptions of epinephrine guided each paramedic's willingness to accept or reject equipoise. Some questioned the role of epinephrine in OHCA; others believed withholding epinephrine was synonymous to denying patient care. CONCLUSION: A paucity of evidence exists to support any beneficial role of epinephrine in OHCA. Despite this, some paramedics were reluctant to participate in Paramedic-2 and relied on their personal perceptions and experiences of epinephrine to guide their decision regarding participation. Failure to acknowledge the importance of individual perspectives may jeopardise the success of future out-of-hospital trials.

Duty to provide care to Ebola patients: the perspectives of Guinean lay people and healthcare providers.

AIM: To examine the views of Guinean lay people and healthcare providers (HCPs) regarding the acceptability of HCPs' refusal to provide care to Ebola patients. METHOD: From October to December 2015, lay people (n=252) and HCPs (n=220) in Conakry, Guinea, were presented with 54 sample case scenarios depicting a HCP who refuses to provide care to Ebola patients and were instructed to rate the extent to which this HCP's decision is morally acceptable. The scenarios were composed by systematically varying the levels of four factors: (1) the risk of getting infected, (2) the HCP's working conditions, (3) the HCP's family responsibilities and (4) the HCP's professional status. RESULTS: Five clusters were identified: (1) 18% of the participants expressed the view that HCPs have an unlimited obligation to provide care to Ebola patients; (2) 38% held that HCPs' duty to care is a function of HCPs' working conditions; (3) 9% based their judgments on a combination of risk level, family responsibilities and working conditions; (4) 23% considered that HCPs do not have an obligation to provide care and (5) 12% did not take a position. CONCLUSION: Only a small minority of Guinean lay people and HCPs consider that HCPs' refusal to provide care to Ebola patients is always unacceptable. The most commonly endorsed position is that HCPs' duty to provide care to Ebola patients is linked to society's reciprocal duty to provide them with the working conditions needed to fulfil their professional duty.

The ethics of withdrawal: the case of follow-up from first-in-human clinical trials.

This paper aims to analyze whether patients should be allowed to veto research-related use of medical data collected during routine follow-ups after their withdrawal from first-in-human clinical trials. Forms of withdrawal are identified and it is argued that the right to withdraw might be limited to some of these. The paper concludes that if veto right is denied, then: the research participant should be informed about the potential use of his/her follow-up data in case of his/her withdrawal and consent to it; follow-up should not be initiated for research purposes; compulsory use of follow-up data should imply the use of data anyway collected, requiring no additional effort from the patient; and before deciding about the veto right, investigation of concerned patients' value preferences is needed.

Parental Refusal of Childhood Vaccines and Medical Neglect Laws.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relation of vaccine refusal and medical neglect under child welfare laws. METHODS: We used the Westlaw legal database to search court opinions from 1905 to 2016 and identified cases in which vaccine refusal was the sole or a primary reason in a neglect proceeding. We also delineated if religious or philosophical exemptions from required school immunizations were available at the time of adjudication. RESULTS: Our search yielded 9 cases from 5 states. Most courts (7 of 9) considered vaccine refusal to constitute neglect. In the 4 cases decided in jurisdictions that permitted religious exemptions, courts either found that vaccine refusal did not constitute neglect or considered it neglect only in the absence of a sincere religious objection to vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Some states have a legal precedent for considering parental vaccine refusal as medical neglect, but this is based on a small number of cases. Each state should clarify whether, under its laws, vaccine refusal constitutes medical neglect.

Victims, vectors and villains: are those who opt out of vaccination morally responsible for the deaths of others?

Mass vaccination has been a successful public health strategy for many contagious diseases. The immunity of the vaccinated also protects others who cannot be safely or effectively vaccinated-including infants and the immunosuppressed. When vaccination rates fall, diseases like measles can rapidly resurge in a population. Those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons are at the highest risk of severe disease and death. They thus may bear the burden of others' freedom to opt out of vaccination. It is often asked whether it is legitimate for states to adopt and enforce mandatory universal vaccination. Yet this neglects a related question: are those who opt out, where it is permitted, morally responsible when others are harmed or die as a result of their decision? In this article, we argue that individuals who opt out of vaccination are morally responsible for resultant harms to others. Using measles as our main example, we demonstrate the ways in which opting out of vaccination can result in a significant risk of harm and death to others, especially infants and the immunosuppressed. We argue that imposing these risks without good justification is blameworthy and examine ways of reaching a coherent understanding of individual moral responsibility for harms in the context of the collective action required for disease transmission. Finally, we consider several objections to this view, provide counterarguments and suggest morally permissible alternatives to mandatory universal vaccination including controlled infection, self-imposed social isolation and financial penalties for refusal to vaccinate.

Informed consent instead of assent is appropriate in children from the age of twelve: Policy implications of new findings on children's competence to consent to clinical research.

BACKGROUND: For many decades, the debate on children's competence to give informed consent in medical settings concentrated on ethical and legal aspects, with little empirical underpinnings. Recently, data from empirical research became available to advance the discussion. It was shown that children's competence to consent to clinical research could be accurately assessed by the modified MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Age limits for children to be deemed competent to decide on research participation have been studied: generally children of 11.2 years and above were decision-making competent, while children of 9.6 years and younger were not. Age was pointed out to be the key determining factor in children's competence. In this article we reflect on policy implications of these findings, considering legal, ethical, developmental and clinical perspectives. DISCUSSION: Although assessment of children's competence has a normative character, ethics, law and clinical practice can benefit from research data. The findings may help to do justice to the capacities children possess and challenges they may face when deciding about treatment and research options. We discuss advantages and drawbacks of standardized competence assessment in children on a case-by-case basis compared to application of a fixed age limit, and conclude that a selective implementation of case-by-case competence assessment in specific populations is preferable. We recommend the implementation of age limits based on empirical evidence. Furthermore, we elaborate on a suitable model for informed consent involving children and parents that would do justice to developmental aspects of children and the specific characteristics of the parent-child dyad. Previous research outcomes showed that children's medical decision-making capacities could be operationalized into a standardized assessment instrument. Recommendations for policies include a dual consent procedure, including both child as well as parents, for children from the age of 12 until they reach majority. For children between 10 and 12 years of age, and in case of children older than 12 years in special research populations of mentally compromised patients, we suggest a case-by-case assessment of children's competence to consent. Since such a dual consent procedure is fundamentally different from a procedure of parental permission and child assent, and would imply a considerable shift regarding some current legislations, practical implications are elaborated.

How Much Control Do Children and Adolescents Have over Genomic Testing, Parental Access to Their Results, and Parental Communication of Those Results to Others?

Adolescents may often have opinions about whether they want genetic and genomic testing in both the clinic and research and about who should have access to the results. This legal analysis demonstrates that the law provides very little protection to minors' wishes.

A reflective study on abortions in theatre.

This article discusses the concept of conscientious objection in relation to surgical terminations of pregnancy. It explores a scrub nurse's duty of care not only to the patient but to themselves. It highlights the importance of being self-aware of one's moral and emotional attitude towards abortions in theatre. Doing so enables the nurse/ODP to practice professionally and autonomously, and to deliver the highest level of perioperative care whilst respecting their personal rights.

Rising rates of vaccine exemptions: problems with current policy and more promising remedies.

Parents of school-age children are increasingly claiming nonmedical exemptions to refuse vaccinations required for school entry. The resultant unvaccinated pockets in many areas of the country have been linked with outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Many states are now focused on reducing rates of nonmedical exemptions by making exemption processes more restrictive or burdensome for the exemptor. These strategies, however, pose ethical problems and may ultimately be inadequate. A shift to strategies that raise the financial liabilities of exemptors may lead to better success and prove ethically more sound. Potential areas of reform include tax law, health insurance, and private school funding programs. We advocate an approach that combines this type of incentive with more effective vaccination education.

The ethics of wildlife research: a nine R theory.

The commonsense ethical constraints on laboratory animal research known as the three Rs are widely accepted, but no constraints tailored to research on animals in the wild are available. In this article, we begin to fill that gap. We sketch a set of commonsense ethical constraints on ecosystem research parallel to the constraints that govern laboratory animal research. Then we combine the animal and ecosystem constraints into a single theory to govern research on animals in the wild.

Conscientious objection and induced abortion in Europe.

The issue of conscientious objection (CO) arises in healthcare when doctors and nurses refuse to have any involvement in the provision of treatment of certain patients due to their religious or moral beliefs. Most commonly CO is invoked when it comes to induced abortion. Of the EU member states where induced abortion is legal, invoking CO is granted by law in 21 countries. The same applies to the non-EU countries Norway and Switzerland. CO is not legally granted in the EU member states Sweden, Finland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic. The Icelandic legislation provides no right to CO either. European examples prove that the recommendation that CO should not prevent women from accessing services fails in a number of cases. CO puts women in an unequal position depending on their place of residence, socio-economic status and income. CO should not be presented as a question that relates only to health professionals and their rights. CO mainly concerns women as it has very real consequences for their reproductive health and rights. European countries should assess the laws governing CO and its effects on women's rights. CO should not be used as a subtle method for limiting the legal right to healthcare.

Conscientious objections in pharmacy practice in Great Britain.

Pharmacists who refuse to provide certain services or treatment for reasons of conscience have been criticized for failing to fulfil their professional obligations. Currently, individual pharmacists in Great Britain can withhold services or treatment for moral or religious reasons, provided they refer the patient to an alternative source. The most high-profile cases have concerned the refusal to supply emergency hormonal contraception, which will serve as an example in this article. I propose that the pharmacy profession's policy on conscientious objections should be altered slightly. Building on the work of Brock and Wicclair, I argue that conscientious refusals should be acceptable provided that the patient is informed of the service, the patient is redirected to an alternative source, the refusal does not cause an unreasonable burden to the patient, and the reasons for the refusal are based on the core values of the profession. Finally, I argue that a principled categorical refusal by an individual pharmacist is not morally permissible. I claim that, contrary to current practice, a pharmacist cannot legitimately claim universal exemption from providing a standard service, even if that service is available elsewhere.

[About <> of vaccination]. / Sobre la <> de la Vacunación.

The debate over compulsory or merely recommended vaccination remains open, albeit latent, in those countries that have mandatory vaccine schedules. Despite the advantages of preventive immunization from the point of medical, economic and social features, it's clear, in the current status of medical ethics, that the exercise of patient autonomy calls for personal responsibility in the election of treatments and, in fact, the vaccines. Therefore, it is necessary to change the simple idea of prevention as <>, characteristic of a <> in order to pass to a preventative medicine concept that will be able to support the achievement of moral attitudes towards achieving the good <> for the individual and for the community. This is only possible from a <> wherever is possible to present an alternative between mandatory vs. recommendation from the concept of <> that, with the help of a series of measures, could combine the effective protection for the whole community with the responsible exercise of the personal autonomy.