When infectious disease outbreaks strike, health facilities acquire labels such as “war zones” and “battlefields” and healthcare professionals become “heroes” on the “front line.” But unlike soldiers, healthcare professionals often take on these dangerous roles without any prior intention or explicit expectation that their work will place them in grave personal danger. This inevitably raises questions about their role-related obligations and whether they should be free to choose not to endanger themselves. In this article, I argue that it is helpful (...) to view this situation not only through the lens of “professional duty” but also through the lens of “role-related conflicts.” Doing so has the advantage of avoiding exceptionalism and allowing us to draw lessons not only from previous epidemics but also from a wide range of far more common role-related dilemmas in healthcare. (shrink)

Many health care professionals (HCPs) are understandably reluctant to treat patients in environments infested with bedbugs, in part due to the risk of themselves becoming bedbug vectors to their own homes and workplaces. However, bedbugs are increasingly widespread in care settings, such as nursing homes, as well as in private homes visited by HCPs, leading to increased questions of how health care organizations and their staff ought to respond. This situation is associated with a range of ethical considerations including the (...) duty of care, stigmatization, vulnerability, confidentiality, risks for third parties, and professional autonomy. In this article, we analyze these issues using a case study approach. We consider how patients whose living environments are infested with bedbugs can receive care in the community setting in a manner that supports their well-being, is consistent with fairness in care provision, and takes into account risks for HCPs and third parties. We also discuss limits and obstacles to the provision of care in these situations. (shrink)

During the past few months, the discussion over the physicians' “Right of Conscience” has been on the rise. The intervention of politics in this issue shifts the discussion to a very specific and narrow area, namely the “reproductive health laws” which bear well-known predisposing attitudes.In this article, the physician's ROC is discussed in the context in which it naturally belongs: the Patient Physician Relationship . I suggest that the physicians' rights demand is a comprehensible, predictable, and even inevitable step as (...) part of the “evolution” of the PPR. Thus, the most appropriate way to comprehend and tackle the demand for physicians' ROC is within the context of medical professionalism. While searching for practical solutions to the “reproductive health” problems, there is a need to recognize the ethical and practical implications of the change in the PPR and balance between patient and physician rights. (shrink)

Recently, the discussion regarding the physicians’ “Right of Conscience” has been on the rise. This issue is often confined to the “reproductive health” arena within the political context. The recent dispute of the Bush-Obama administrations regarding the legal protections of health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs is an example of the political aspects of this dispute. The involvement of the political system automatically shifts the discussion regarding physicians’ ROC into the narrow area of “reproductive (...) health laws.” Indeed, the immediate association that comes to mind when thinking about the practical implications of this dispute is related to the reproductive health arena. This is partly because of the historical context of the first “conscience clauses,” initially enacted by Congress and state legislatures in the mid-1970s; in fact, most of these clauses provided specific exemptions for abortion and few exempted sterilization as well. (shrink)

Epistemic injustice has undergone a steady growth in the medical ethics literature throughout the last decade as many ethicists have found it to be a powerful tool for describing and assessing morally problematic situations in healthcare. However, surprisingly scarce attention has been devoted to how epistemic injustice relates to physicians’ professional duties on a conceptual level. I argue that epistemic injustice, specifically testimonial, collides with physicians’ duty of nonmaleficence and should thus be actively fought against in healthcare encounters on the (...) ground of professional conduct. I do so by fleshing out how Fricker’s conception of testimonial injustice conflicts with the duty of nonmaleficence as defined in Beauchamp and Childress on theoretical grounds. From there, I argue that testimonial injustice produces two distinct types of harm, epistemic and non-epistemic. Epistemic harms are harms inflicted by the physician to the patient qua knower, whereas non-epistemic harms are inflicted to the patient qua patient. This latter case holds serious clinical implications and represent a failure of the process of due care on the part of the physician. I illustrate this through examples taken from the literature on fibromyalgia syndrome and show how testimonial injustice causes wrongful harm to patients, making it maleficent practice. Finally, I conclude on why nonmaleficence as a principle will not be normatively enough to fully address the problem of epistemic injustice in healthcare but nevertheless may serve as a good starting point in attempting to do so. (shrink)