In this commentary on a clinical ethics case pertaining to a same-sex couple that does not have explicit surrogate decision-making or hospital-visitation rights (in the face of objections from the family-of-origin of one of the queer partners), the authors invoke contemporary legal and policy standards on LGBTQ health care in the United States and abroad. Given this historical moment in which some clinical rights are guaranteed for LGBTQ families whilst others are in transition, the authors advocate for the implementation of (...) clinical ethics mediation as the soundest and most humane form of resolution in matters where there is a dispute between family members about an incapacitated loved one. They argue that clinical ethics mediation is an ideal alternative solution because it works toward consensus about outcome, even where consensus about values is not achievable. (shrink)

Developing a care plan in a critical care context can be challenging when the therapeutic alliance between clinicians and families is compromised by anger. When these cases occur, clinicians often turn to clinical ethics consultants to assist them with repairing this alliance before further damage can occur. This paper describes five different reasons family members may feel and express anger and offers concrete strategies for clinical ethics consultants to use when working with angry families acting as surrogate decision makers for (...) critical care patients. We reviewed records of consults using thematic analysis between January 2015 and June 2016. Each case was coded to identify whether the case involved a negative encounter with an angry family. In our review, we selected 11 cases with at least one of the following concerns or reasons for anger: perceived or actual medical error, concerns about the medical team’s competence, miscommunication, perceived conflict of interest or commitment, or loss of control. To successfully implement these strategies, clinical ethics consultants, members of the medical team, and family members should share responsibility for creating a mutually respectful relationship. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 11-12, May 2012.

In their paper, “Ethical Issues in Using Behavior Contracts to Manage the “Difficult” Patient and Family,” Autumn Fiester and Chase Yuan raise numerous important ethical concerns regarding behavior...

Whether practiced by ethics committees or clinical ethicists, medical ethics enjoys a solid foundation in acute care hospitals. However, medical ethics fails to have a strong presence in the primary care setting. Recently, some ethicists have argued that the reason for this disparity between ethics in the acute and primary care setting is that primary care ethics is distinct from acute care ethics: the failure to translate ethics to the primary care setting stems from the incorrect belief that acute care (...) ethics can be applied to the primary care setting. In this paper, I argue that primary care ethics and acute care ethics are species of the same ethical genus, and that the ethical differences are not ones of kind but of circumstance. I do this by appealing to the role obligations that underlie acute care and primary care clinicians’ medical ethical obligations and the shared institutions that ground those obligations. (shrink)

Fiester and Yuan discuss important ethical concerns regarding the use of behavior contracts in addressing conflict with patients and families labeled as “difficult” (Fiester and Yuan 2023). We agre...

(2013). The “Difficult Patient” Conundrum in Sickle Cell Disease in Kenya: Complex Sociopolitical Problems Need Wide Multidimensional Solutions. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 20-22. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.767960.

While we agree with Fiester and Yuan (2023) that ethicists should not execute behavioral agreements in their role as clinical consultants along with many of the authors’ criticisms of such contract...

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 20-22, May 2012.

The language of ethics expertise has become particularly important in bioethics in light of efforts to establish the value of the clinical ethics consultation, to specify who is qualified to function as a clinical ethics consultant, and to characterize how one should evaluate whether or not a person is so qualified. Supporters and skeptics about the possibility of ethics expertise use the language of ethics expertise in ways that reflect competing views about what ethics expertise entails. We argue for clarity (...) in understanding the nature of expertise and ethics expertise. To be an ethics expert, we argue, is to be an expert in knowing what ought to be done. Any attempt to articulate expertise with respect to knowing what ought to be done must include an account of ethics that specifies the nature of moral truth and the means by which we access this truth or a theoretical account of ethics such that expertise in another domain is linked to knowing or being better at judging what ought to be done and the standards by which this “knowing” or “being better at judging” is determined. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our analysis for the literature on ethics expertise in CEC. We do think that there are clear domains in which a clinical ethics consultant might be expert but we are skeptical about the possibility that this includes ethics expertise. Clinical ethics consultants should not be referred to as ethics experts. (shrink)

(2013). Disrespectful Care in the Treatment of Sickle Cell Disease Requires More Than Ethics Consultation. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 12-14. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.768857.

This article focuses on patients' participation in decision‐making in meetings with healthcare professionals in a healthcare system, based on neoliberal regulations and ideas. Drawing on two constructed empirical cases, primarily from the perspective of patients, this article analyses and discusses the clinical practice around decision‐making meetings within a Foucauldian perspective. Patients' participation in decision‐making can be seen as an offshoot of respect for patient autonomy. A treatment must be chosen, when patients consult physicians. From the perspective of patients, there is (...) a tendency for healthcare professionals to supply the patients with the information that they think are necessary for them to make their own decision. But patients do not always want to be a ‘customer’ in the healthcare system; they want to be a patient, consulting an expert for help and advice, which creates resistance to some parts of the decision‐making process. Both professionals and patients are subject to the structural frame of the medical field, formed of both neoliberal framework and medical logic. The decision‐making competence in relation to the choice of treatment is placed away from the professionals and seen as belonging to the patient. A ‘projectification’ of the patient occurs, whereby the patient becomes responsible for his/her choices in treatment and care and the professionals support him/her with knowledge, preferences, and alternative views, out of which he/she must make his/her own choices, and the responsibility for those choices now and in the future. At the same time, there is a tendency towards de‐professionalization. In that light, participation of patients in decision‐making can be regarded as a tacit governmentality strategy that shapes the location of responsibility between individual and society, and independent patients and healthcare professionals, despite the basically desirable, appropriate, and necessary idea of involving patients in their own situations from a humanistic perspective. (shrink)

Conflict resolution is a core component of healthcare ethics consultation (HEC) and proficiency in this skill set is recognized by the national bioethics organization and its HEC certification process. Difficult interpersonal interactions between the clinical team and patients or their families are often inexorably connected to the normative disputes that are the catalyst for the consult. Ethics consultants are often required to navigate challenging dynamics that have become entrenched and work with patient-provider or family-provider relationships that have already broken down. (...) The first step in conflict resolution is diagnosing the source of the conflict. Because so many interpersonal and normative conflicts rest on misunderstanding and mischaracterization, the diagnosis of the problem requires untangling the actual positions and perspectives of the conflicting parties from the fallacious assumptions made about the parties’ respective positions and views. Developed in management science, the Ladder of Inference (LOI) is a diagnostic tool for assisting stakeholders in re-examining the process they used to form beliefs about others involved in the conflict. The LOI is a device that detects errors in reasoning, including implicit racial bias, that lead to false judgments and counterproductive responses to those judgments. The LOI is an instrument that can be used by ethics consultants to help resolve contentious bedside conflicts, but the LOI can also be employed as a teaching tool used by healthcare ethics consultants in training the clinical staff in how to avoid such conflicts in the first place. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultations are sometimes deemed complete at the moment when the consultants make a recommendation. In CECs that involve actual ethical conflict, this view of a consult's endpoint runs the risk of overemphasizing the conflict's resolution at the expense of the consult's process, which can have deleterious effects on the various parties in the conflict. This overly narrow focus on reaching a decision or recommendation in consults that involve profound moral disagreement can result in two types of adverse, lingering (...) sequelae: moral distress or negative moral emotions. The problem, succinctly named, is that such consults have insufficient “closure” for patients, families, and providers. To promote closure, and avoid the ills of moral distress and the moral emotions, I argue that CECs need to prioritize assisted conversation between the different stakeholders in these conflicts, what is often referred to as “bioethics mediation.”. (shrink)

Clinical ethics consultations are sometimes deemed complete at the moment when the consultants make a recommendation. In CECs that involve actual ethical conflict, this view of a consult's endpoint runs the risk of overemphasizing the conflict's resolution at the expense of the consult's process, which can have deleterious effects on the various parties in the conflict. This overly narrow focus on reaching a decision or recommendation in consults that involve profound moral disagreement can result in two types of adverse, lingering (...) sequelae: moral distress or negative moral emotions. The problem, succinctly named, is that such consults have insufficient “closure” for patients, families, and providers. To promote closure, and avoid the ills of moral distress and the moral emotions, I argue that CECs need to prioritize assisted conversation between the different stakeholders in these conflicts, what is often referred to as “bioethics mediation.”. (shrink)

Long used as a tool for medical compliance and adhering to treatment plans, behavior contracts have made their way into the in-patient healthcare setting as a way to manage the “difficult” patient and family. The use of this tool is even being adopted by healthcare ethics consultants (HECs) in US hospitals as part of their work in navigating conflict at the bedside. Anecdotal evidence of their increasing popularity among clinical ethicists, for example, can be found at professional bioethics meetings and (...) conversations and idea-sharing among practitioners on HEC social media. While there are a handful of papers gesturing toward a bioethical critique of behavior contracts of various types, the use of behavior contracts in the context of interpersonal conflict has not been vetted by bioethicists to determine their ethical legitimacy or efficacy. In this paper, we highlight a set of ethical concerns that we believe must be addressed before continuing or widespread implementation of behavior contracts to manage the “difficult” patient or family. (shrink)

(2013). De-Escalating Conflict: Mediation and the “Difficult” Patient. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 11-12. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.768855.

In the zeal to find a workable credentialing process for clinical ethics consultants (CECs), the current motto in the field seems to be “something is better than nothing.” Although the field has be...

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 13-14, May 2012.

(2013). Intractable Difficulties in Caring for People With Sickle Cell Disease. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 22-24. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.767959.

(2013). Acknowledging Levels of Racism in the Definition of “Difficult”. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 16-18. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.767964.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 16-18, May 2012.

An eighteen‐year‐old with sickle cell disease was admitted to the pediatric hematology service at his local children's hospital for management of an acute pain crisis, one of many such admissions. He had a good relationship with his primary hematologist and primary nurse, but with other health care providers, there was evident friction. Sometimes, he was simply rude, rolling over and pretending to sleep in response to questions about his symptoms. When frustrated or convinced that his pain was not being addressed (...) appropriately, he was prone to yelling and cursing at his nurses. After members of the health care team complained, their supervisor decided to transfer the patient to an adult general medicine service. Reasons cited for the transition included the stressful work environment created by the patient's actions, his refusal to follow directives from staff (although he was generally adherent to treatment), and the hypothetical harm to other young patients who might witness his behavior. Was this a just outcome? Is it ever permissible to deny access to pediatric care to a patient whose best interests would be served by it? Can access be withheld for “bad” behavior, and can transfer of care be wielded as a punishment? (shrink)

In a healthcare setting, a multitude of ethical and moral challenges are often present when patients and families direct uncivil behavior toward clinicians and staff. These negative interactions may elicit strong social and emotional reactions among staff, other patients, and visitors; and they may impede the normal functioning of an institution. Ethics Committees and Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (CECSs) can meaningfully contribute to organizational efforts to effectively manage incivility through two distinct, yet inter-related channels. First, given their responsibility to promote (...) a humane, respectful, and professional climate, many CECSs and Ethics Committees may assist institutional leadership in evaluating and monitoring incivility policies and procedures. Second, when confronted with individual incidents of patient/family incivility, Ethics Consultants can and often do work with all stakeholders to address and mitigate potentially deleterious impacts. This manuscript presents an overview of the multifaceted ethical implications of incivility in the healthcare environment, discusses the inherent qualifications of Ethics Consultants for assisting in the management of incivility, and proposes specific mitigating actions within the purview of CECSs and Ethics Committees. We also invite healthcare organizations to harness the skills and reputation of their CECSs and Ethics Committees in confronting incivility through comprehensive policies, procedures, and training. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 8-9, May 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 15-16, May 2012.

(2013). Sickle Cell Disease and the “Difficult Patient” Conundrum. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 3-10. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.767954.

(2013). Pain, Chronic Pain, and Sickle Cell Chronic Pain. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 14-16. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.768859.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 9-11, May 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 5, Page 18-20, May 2012.