McCullough and colleagues draw an historical line from the writings of Percival, who found himself resolving arguments (sometimes violent) between physicians, surgeons and apothecaries, to the concept of civility as a professional virtue and duty. The authors show that civility is a prerequisite to effective cooperation, which itself underpins patient safety and positive clinical outcomes—desirable endpoints of any discussion about healthcare. They exhort academic leaders to teach, role model and reward correct behaviours.1 Why then, as a clinician manager with a (...) deep interest in fostering civility and psychological safety, am I not satisfied? Three reasons: the paper does not adequately explore the reasons why, its focus is largely restricted to academic institutions, and it does not encompass the non-clinical workforce; as a result, its proposed solutions appear ungrounded. Why are ‘good people’, who were attracted to careers that demand altruism and empathy, uncivil in the workplace? What are the competing goals that result in curt, disrespectful or downright rude exchanges? This has been studied. Leape et al concluded that endogenous factors such as personality, insecurity, anxiety, depression, narcissism and responses to prior …. (shrink)

Assisted dying (AD) has not been legalized despite a number of presentations to parliament. It is necessary for doctors who support AD to justify themselves in the context of repeated legislative failure. This article describes the author's personal approach to the problem, one that prioritizes respect for autonomy above legal or societal objections. It is argued that for debilitated patients, the preservation of autonomy depends on a doctor's empathy and willingness to advocate. This sequence can be interrupted by externally and (...) internally imposed barriers. External factors include indiscriminate respect for the law and society's institutions, an inaccurate perception of the balance of risks to society and insufficient compensation for the dying person's inability to mount a sustained challenge. Internal brakes to advocacy such as elevation of personal morality above the needs of patients, attenuation of the therapeutic relationship in cases of moral complexity and the temptation to abdicate the role of physician are also explored. It is concluded that if AD could in theory be of benefit to a patient, but cannot be achieved due to its illegality, doctors have a duty to actively represent their demands as they would for other forms of treatment. (shrink)

In cases of sudden, life-threatening illness where the chance of survival appears negligible to the admitting physician, this opinion is not always revealed during the initial meeting with the patient's relatives. Reasons as to why this withholding of the truth may be acceptable are explored through review of available evidence and personal reflection. Factors identified include: the importance of hope in families' coping mechanisms, and the instinct to preserve it; the fallibility of physicians' perception of poor prognosis in the early (...) phase of illness; the need to avoid large swings in relatives' expectations that occur when patients appear to rally during initial resuscitation; and the adverse effect that an atmosphere of hopelessness can have on the provision of medical care. A strategy for the staged disclosure of information and the confirmation of hopelessness is then described, the aim being to find a compromise between providing a true opinion about a patient's prognosis, and regard for the opposing factors described. (shrink)