The COVID-19 virus is severely testing the Italian healthcare system, as the requests for intensive treatment are greater than the real capacity of the system to receive patients. Given this emergency situation, it follows that citizens are limited in their freedom of movement in order to limit infection, and that in hospitals a significant number of critical situations must be faced. This brief contribution aims to offer a reflection on the public and clinical role of the bioethicist: a figure able (...) to promote dialogue between the world of medicine and the community, and to face ethical dilemmas even in emergent clinical settings. (shrink)

Different methods are available in clinical ethics consultation. In our experience as ethics consultants, certain individual methods have proven insufficient, and so we use a combination of methods. Based on these considerations, we first critically analyze the pros and cons of two well-known methods in the working field of clinical ethics, namely Beauchamp and Childress’s four-principle approach and Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade’s four-box method. We then present the circle method, which we have used and refined during several clinical ethics consultations (...) in the hospital setting. (shrink)

The Italian debate about the role of clinical ethics and ethics consultation has brought about the need to create a working group of Healthcare Ethics Consultation. The group began to take shape an...

A Second level Master in “Clinical Bioethics Consultation” has been organized in Italy to offer an opportunity to offer an adequate training to carry out an ethics consultation in different health fields. The master has been promoted and realized by different institutions: Catholic University of Sacred Hearth in Rome, Insubria University in Varese, “Federico II” University in Naples, Lanza Foundation in Padua and the Local Health and Social Care Unit n.7 in Veneto Region. The aim of the master is train (...) ethics consultants to offer help regarding a correct decision, which will take by others. The choice must be as much as possible shared between patient, family and health care team. Ethics consultation can be primarily request by the physicians, nurses and health care staff such as support about a choice that wants to be the most appropriate and to clarify a dilemma between different options. Secondly an ethics consultation can be demand by the patient and the family members to find a clarification about their dilemmas and future choices. Also the administrative staff could ask the consultation, when it need to better explain ad example about a specific clinical case or a question concerned the health policy. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to analyze an Intensive Care Unit case that required ethics consultation at a University Hospital in Northern Italy. After the case was resolved, a retrospective ethical analysis was performed by four clinical ethicists who work in different healthcare contexts. Each ethicist used a different method to analyze the case; the four general approaches provide insight into how these ethicists conduct ethics consultations at their respective hospitals. Concluding remarks examine the similarities and differences among the (...) various approaches and offer a reflection concerning the possibility of a shared resolution to the case. The authors’ efforts to come to a tentative consensus may serve as an example for professionals working in medical contexts that reflect an increasing pluralism of values. This article aims to respond to some of these concerns by illustrating how different methods in clinical ethics would be used when considering a real case. The goal is not to establish the best model on a theoretical level, but to learn from actual practice in order to see if there are common elements in the different methods, and to validate their pertinence to clinical ethics consultation. (shrink)

Patient-and-family-centered care (PFCC) is critical in end-of-life (EOL) settings. PFCC serves to develop and implement patient care plans within the context of unique family situations. Key components of PFCC include collaboration and communication among patients, family members and healthcare professionals (HCP). Ethical challenges arise when the burdens (e.g., economic, psychosocial, physical) of family members and significant others do not align with patients’ wishes. This study aims to describe the concept of vulnerability and the ethical challenges faced by HCPs in these (...) circumstances. Further, it assesses the contribution of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) in assisting HCPs to face these difficult ethical conundrums. Two clinical cases are analyzed using the Circle Method of CEC. The first regards the difficulty faced by the doctor in justifying treatments previously agreed upon between the patient and his/her friends. The second regards the patient’s concern about being a burden on their family. Family burdens in EOL settings challenge PFCC in that patient autonomy may be disregarded. This compromises shared decision-making between the patient, family and HCPs as a core component of PFCC. In their ability to promote a collaborative approach, CECs may assist in the successful implementation of PFCC. (shrink)

That Jehovah’s Witnesses may refuse lifesaving blood transfusions is a morally accepted feature of contemporary medical practice. The principle of respect for autonomy supports this, and there is seldom reason to interfere with this choice because it rarely harms another individual. Advances in surgical technique have made it possible for transplant surgeons to perform bloodless organ transplant, enabling Jehovah’s Witnesses to benefit from this treatment. When the transplant organ is a directed donation from a family member or friend, no ethical (...) dilemma arises. However, when a Jehovah’s Witness cannot identify a living donor and wishes to be listed for organ transplant, the transplant team may face an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, it wishes to provide care to the patient that is compatible with her or his preferences. On the other hand, the team may wonder if it is fair to other patients who need an organ and will accept blood transfusion to include the Jehovah’s Witness patient on a waiting list for a donated organ. If the Jehovah’s Witness patient is listed and receives an organ, then a patient who also needs an organ, and who is willing to accept all care to optimize the success of the transplant, may be denied an organ.To frame the ethical dilemma outlined above we present an anonymized case of a Jehovah’s Witness woman in urgent need of a kidney, who was referred to one of the authors’ institution’s transplant center. We review the evolution of the Jehovah’s Witness position on blood transfusion and the medical community’s efforts to provide care that accommodates this religious commitment. If Witnesses are to be denied transplant in the name of justice, there must be an ethically sound reason. We identify two rationales in the literature: (1) this allocation is unacceptable because it will cost lives; (2) resources should be allocated to patients who comply with the standard of care. We argue that neither apply to this dilemma. We also emphasize the importance of examining the data on outcomes of transplant with and without transfusion. Our interpretation of the published data on transplant without transfusion is that the outcomes are similar. We conclude that, in the absence of data that resources are risked, it is not ethical to refuse to include a Jehovah’s Witness patient on a waiting list for an organ. Finally, we reflect on the heterogeneity in transplant institutes’ polices for accepting Jehovah’s Witness patients. (shrink)