The discharge of older people from hospital at night is a topical and emotive issue that has recently gained media attention in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, including calls to prevent it occurring. With growing pressures on hospital capacity and ageing populations, normative aspects of hospital discharge are increasingly relevant. This paper therefore addresses the question: Should older people (say, over eighty years old) ever be discharged home from hospital during the night? Or given safety concerns, should regulation against (...) the night-time discharge of older people be put in place? Employing a principlist lens to bioethics, this paper considers key principles or values involved, including discharge safety concerns, personal preference and consent, the risk of remaining in hospital, and broader considerations around discharge policy. These points act as a possible framework for further research and discussion of normative aspects of hospital discharge. Overall, this paper argues that while discharge safety concerns must be properly acknowledged and addressed, it can still sometimes be appropriate for an older person to leave hospital at night. The option of night-time discharge should therefore remain open to people of all ages. (shrink)

Decision-making capacity is a vital concept in law, ethics, and clinical practice. Two legal cases where capacity literally had life and death significance are NHS Trust v Ms T [2004] and Kings College Hospital v C [2015]. These cases share another feature: unusual beliefs. This essay will critically assess the concept of capacity, particularly in relation to the unusual beliefs in these cases. Firstly, the interface between capacity and unusual beliefs will be examined. This will show that the “using and (...) weighing of information” is the pivotal element in assessment. Next, this essay will explore the relationship between capacity assessment and a decision’s “rationality.” Then, in light of these findings, the essay will appraise the judgments in NHS v T and Kings v C, and consider these judgments’ implications. More broadly, this essay asks: Does capacity assessment examine only the decision-making process, or is it also influenced by a decision’s rationality? If influenced by rationality, capacity assessment has the potential to become “a search and disable policy aimed at those who are differently orientated in the human life-world”. In contentious cases like these, this potential deserves attention. (shrink)

A 90-year-old man is diagnosed with early dementia. There are concerns about whether he is still fit to drive his car safely, but he is determined to continue driving. In this case, the clinician finds that this decision on fitness to drive is essentially evaluative and normative. Given the conflict of interests involved, how should the clinician attempt to manage this challenging ethical dilemma? This increasingly common clinical ethics scenario warrants further attention. After presenting the case, this analysis will consider (...) the relevant issues in three dimensions: an ethical dilemma, a clinician–patient interaction, and a broader context. This analysis provides a potential framework for clinicians making decisions on fitness to drive in early dementia. (shrink)