Do Physicians Have a Duty to Support Secondary Use of Clinical Data in Biomedical Research? An Inquiry into the Professional Ethics of Physicians.

Secondary use of clinical data in research or learning activities (SeConts) has the potential to improve patient care and biomedical knowledge. Given this potential, the ethical question arises whether physicians have a professional duty to support SeConts. To investigate this question, we analyze prominent international declarations on physicians' professional ethics to determine whether they include duties that can be considered as good reasons for a physicians' professional duty to support SeConts. Next, we examine these documents to identify professional duties that might conflict with a potential duty of physicians to support SeConts.

Guiding Ethical Decisions in Cochlear Implantation for the Hearing Impaired with Comorbid Psychosis.

AbstractCochlear implants can restore hearing in people with severe hearing loss and have a significant impact on communication, social integration, self-esteem, and quality of life. However, whether and how much clinical benefit is derived from cochlear implants varies significantly by patient and is influenced by the etiology and extent of hearing loss, medical comorbidities, and preexisting behavioral and psychosocial issues. In patients with underlying psychosis, concerns have been raised that the introduction of auditory stimuli could trigger hallucinations, worsen existing delusions, or exacerbate erratic behavior. This concern has made psychosis a relative contraindication to cochlear implant surgery. This is problematic because there is a lack of data describing this phenomenon and because the psychosocial benefits derived from improvement in auditory function may be a critical intervention for treating psychosis in some patients. The objective of this report is to provide an ethical framework for guiding clinical decision-making on cochlear implant surgery in the hearing impaired with psychosis.

Contribution of ethical reasoning learning sessions on medical training.

INTRODUCTION: Ethical reasoning is an important skill for all physicians who often face complex ethical dilemmas in their daily practice. Therefore, medical training should include methods for learning ethical theories and concepts, as well as how to apply them in practical situations. AIM: Assess the contribution of an Ethical Reasoning Learning session to fifth medical students' training through a comparison of results of the same objective and structured clinical examination (OSCE) in the form of simulated interview before and after sessions. METHODS: Four 45- minutes' sessions of Ethical Reasoning Learning (ERL) were implemented during a psychiatry internship for four groups of 5th-year students of the faculty of medicine of Monastir (Tunisia). Each session was divided into 7 parts: introduction, reading of a clinical vignette, brainstorming concerning the problems posed by this clinical situation, classification of the problems, identification of the principles of medical ethics, construction of the ethical matrix, and a conclusion. RESULTS: Fifty-seven students participated in the study divided into 4 groups. We found a significant difference in the means of the OSCE scores before and after the ERL session and a significant difference between the probability of respecting medical secrecy during pre and post-ethical reasoning learning sessions (p <0.001). We have found an effect of ERL sessions on the acquisition of this ethical competence by medical students. CONCLUSION: We learned that an ERL session has improved medical training in ethics applied to psychiatry. Other sessions dealing with other ethical skills are necessary to confirm these results.

Evolving Landscape of Ethics in Oncology: A Journey Through the Past, Present, and Future.

Providing a brief overview of past, present, and future ethics issues in oncology, this article begins with historical contexts, including the paternalistic approach to cancer care. It delves into present-day challenges such as navigating cancer treatment during pregnancy and addressing health care disparities faced by LGBTQ+ individuals. It also explores the ethical implications of emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence and Big Data, in clinical decision making and medical education.

A quantitative analysis of publication trends in Iranian medical ethics and a comparison with EMRO countries.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating publication trends in a research area helps assess organised scientific efforts in the particular academic field. This study aims to evaluate and compare trends in medical ethics publications in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) countries. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify publication trends of Iranian and EMRO medical ethicists. Databases were searched, including Web of Sciences, Scopus, and PubMed for English language articles, which were published by countries in the World Health Organization EMRO regions. Iranian articles were searched in Persian and English language databases. The search strategy for the bioethics filter created by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics. Duplicate entries, tertiary publications and grey literature were excluded. All retrieved articles were categorised into ten main groups. Citavi software® was used for categorising and extracting articles' information. RESULTS: A total of 1835 English and Persian articles were obtained. Most (1211, 66%) Iranian publications in medical ethics were in Persian, and the rest (624, 34%) were in English. Most (306, 64.42%) of the published English articles in the EMRO region were authored by Iranian scholars, followed by those from Saudi Arabia (52, 10.95%), Oman (40, 8.42%), Pakistan (28, 5.89%), Lebanon (13, 2.74%), and Egypt (12, 2.53%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the trend of publication of EMRO countries, especially Iranian publications, is insufficient to respond to national demands in medical ethics. A concept map has been presented to determine research needs in medical ethics. Focusing on national and regional research potentials could synergistically affect medical ethics progress in the EMRO region.

Conscientious refusal or conscientious provision: We can't have both.

Some authors argue that it is permissible for clinicians to conscientiously provide abortion services because clinicians are already allowed to conscientiously refuse to provide certain services. Call this the symmetry thesis. We argue that on either of the two main understandings of the aim of the medical profession-what we will call "pathocentric" and "interest-centric" views-conscientious refusal and conscientious provision are mutually exclusive. On pathocentric views, refusing to provide a service that takes away from a patient's health is professionally justified because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to refuse to provide that service (e.g., it does not heal, and it is contrary to the goals of medicine). However, providing that same service is not professionally justified when providing that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. Likewise, the thesis turns out false on interest-centric views. Refusing to provide a service is not professionally justified when that service helps the patient fulfill her autonomous preferences because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to provide that service (e.g., it helps her achieve her autonomous preferences, and it would be contrary to the goals of medicine to deny her that service). However, refusing to provide that same service is not professionally justified when refusing to provide that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. As a result, on either of the two most plausible views on the goals of medicine, the symmetry thesis turns out false.

Development of a Medical Social Media Ethics Scale and Assessment of #IRad, #CardioTwitter, and #MedTwitter Posts: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Social media posts by clinicians are not bound by the same rules as peer-reviewed publications, raising ethical concerns that have not been extensively characterized or quantified. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a scale to assess ethical issues on medical social media (SoMe) and use it to determine the prevalence of these issues among posts with 3 different hashtags: #MedTwitter, #IRad, and #CardioTwitter. METHODS: A scale was developed based on previous descriptions of professionalism and validated via semistructured cognitive interviewing with a sample of 11 clinicians and trainees, interrater agreement, and correlation of 100 posts. The final scale assessed social media posts in 6 domains. This was used to analyze 1500 Twitter posts, 500 each from the 3 hashtags. Analysis of posts was limited to original Twitter posts in English made by health care professionals in North America. The prevalence of potential issues was determined using descriptive statistics and compared across hashtags using the Fisher exact and χ2 tests with Yates correction. RESULTS: The final scale was considered reflective of potential ethical issues of SoMe by participants. There was good interrater agreement (Cohen κ=0.620, P<.01) and moderate to strong positive interrater correlation (=0.602, P<.001). The 6 scale domains showed minimal to no interrelation (Cronbach α=0.206). Ethical concerns across all hashtags had a prevalence of 1.5% or less except the conflict of interest concerns on #IRad, which had a prevalence of 3.6% (n=18). Compared to #MedTwitter, posts with specialty-specific hashtags had more patient privacy and conflict of interest concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The SoMe professionalism scale we developed reliably reflects potential ethical issues. Ethical issues on SoMe are rare but important and vary in prevalence across medical communities.

A paradigm shift?-On the ethics of medical large language models.

After a wave of breakthroughs in image-based medical diagnostics and risk prediction models, machine learning (ML) has turned into a normal science. However, prominent researchers are claiming that another paradigm shift in medical ML is imminent-due to most recent staggering successes of large language models-from single-purpose applications toward generalist models, driven by natural language. This article investigates the implications of this paradigm shift for the ethical debate. Focusing on issues like trust, transparency, threats of patient autonomy, responsibility issues in the collaboration of clinicians and ML models, fairness, and privacy, it will be argued that the main problems will be continuous with the current debate. However, due to functioning of large language models, the complexity of all these problems increases. In addition, the article discusses some profound challenges for the clinical evaluation of large language models and threats to the reproducibility and replicability of studies about large language models in medicine due to corporate interests.