Symptom Checker Applications (SCA) are mobile applications often designed for the end-user to assist with symptom assessment and self-triage. SCA are meant to provide the user with easily accessible information about their own health conditions. However, SCA raise questions regarding ethical, legal, and social aspects (ELSA), for example, regarding fair access to this new technology. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the ELSA of SCA in the scientific literature. A scoping review was conducted to identify the ELSA (...) of SCA. Ten databases (e.g., Web of Science and PubMed) were used. Studies on SCA that address ELSA, written in English or German, were included in the review. The ELSA of SCA were extracted and synthesized using qualitative content analysis. A total of 25,061 references were identified, of which 39 were included in the analysis. The identified aspects were allotted to three main categories: (1) Technology; (2) Individual Level; and (3) Healthcare system. The results show that there are controversial debates in the literature on the ethical and social challenges of SCA usage. Furthermore, the debates are characterised by a lack of a specific legal perspective and empirical data. The review provides an overview on the spectrum of ELSA regarding SCA. It offers guidance to stakeholders in the healthcare system, for example, patients, healthcare professionals, and insurance providers and could be used in future empirical research to investigate the perspectives of those affected, such as users. (shrink)

Background Symptom checker apps (SCAs) are mobile or online applications for lay people that usually have two main functions: symptom analysis and recommendations. SCAs ask users questions about their symptoms via a chatbot, give a list with possible causes, and provide a recommendation, such as seeing a physician. However, it is unclear whether the actual performance of a SCA corresponds to the users’ experiences. This qualitative study investigates the subjective perspectives of SCA users to close the empirical gap identified in (...) the literature and answers the following main research question: How do individuals (healthy users and patients) experience the usage of SCA, including their attitudes, expectations, motivations, and concerns regarding their SCA use? Methods A qualitative interview study was chosen to clarify the relatively unknown experience of SCA use. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with SCA users were carried out by two researchers in tandem via video call. Qualitative content analysis was selected as methodology for the data analysis. Results Fifteen interviews with SCA users were conducted and seven main categories identified: (1) Attitudes towards findings and recommendations, (2) Communication, (3) Contact with physicians, (4) Expectations (prior to use), (5) Motivations, (6) Risks, and (7) SCA-use for others. Conclusions The aspects identified in the analysis emphasise the specific perspective of SCA users and, at the same time, the immense scope of different experiences. Moreover, the study reveals ethical issues, such as relational aspects, that are often overlooked in debates on mHealth. Both empirical and ethical research is more needed, as the awareness of the subjective experience of those affected is an essential component in the responsible development and implementation of health apps such as SCA. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00022465. 07/08/2020. (shrink)

Coercion in the treatment of persons suffering from mental disorders is one of the major ethical controversies in psychiatry. Despite great efforts to reduce the use of coercive interventions, they are still widespread and differ between European countries regarding the specific type of intervention and the number of patients affected. It is common to justify measures against the present will of patients under the assumption that they promote their well-being, that is, by reference to the ethical principal of beneficence. However, (...) it is indisputable that such measures can also cause severe harm to the patients concerned and that these measures are often experienced as degrading. In which situations can coercive interventions be labeled justifiably as “beneficial”? How can they be reduced to a minimum? This volume addresses these issues from an interdisciplinary and international perspective, combining contributions from, among others, medical ethicists, philosophers, legal scholars, psychologists and psychiatrists from different European countries. Theoretical and conceptual essays are complemented by contributions with a strong relationship to clinical practice. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungIn der aktuellen ethischen Debatte über die ärztliche Unterstützung bei der Selbsttötung von schwerkranken Patienten werden von unterschiedlicher Seite strafrechtliche Verbote gefordert. Ging es zunächst in der politischen Debatte ausschließlich um das Verbot organisierter Formen der Beihilfe zur Selbsttötung, werden nunmehr einerseits auch weitergehende strafrechtliche Verbote bis hin zum Verbot jeder Form von Beihilfehandlungen wie andererseits die ausdrückliche Zulassung der Suizidbeihilfe durch Ärzte gefordert. Ausgehend vom Ansatz, ein Verbot der Suizidassistenz im Strafgesetzbuch aufzunehmen, zeigt der Artikel, dass die Straflosigkeit von (...) Suizid und Suizidassistenz in Deutschland auf eine lange Tradition zurückgeht. Die Straflosigkeit der Beihilfe zum Suizid lässt sich dabei nicht nur systematisch, sondern auch inhaltlich begründen. Eine Strafbarkeit hingegen wäre weder rechtlich noch ethisch überzeugend darzustellen. Die Verfasser sprechen sich unter Bezugnahme auf einzelne Regelungsvorschläge gegen ein Strafverbot und schließlich für einen offenen Diskurs innerhalb der Ärzteschaft sowie für eine Neuregelung im Berufsrecht aus. (shrink)

Definition of the problem The reform of German guardianship law coming into force in 2023 will remove the term “well-being” from the law. This is intended to emphasise that the legal guardian should be guided by the subjective wishes of the person rather than by an objective understanding of well-being. This article analyses the understanding of well-being underlying the reformed guardianship law in comparison to common conceptions of well-being in philosophy and medical ethics, aiming to promote interdisciplinary understanding between ethics (...) and law. Arguments The justification for the reform emphasises that the law is based on a subjective understanding of well-being. However, this understanding does not correspond to philosophical subjective theories of well-being, according to which only things that a person desires can contribute to her well-being. In contrast, the guardianship law assumes that the fulfilment of certain wishes can lead to objective harm to the person and thus impair her well-being. Negative consequences for the objective well-being of a person are only relevant insofar as they indicate a limit to following current wishes that are based on a natural will and are not an expression of self-determination. Conclusion While the term “well-being” is removed from reformed guardianship law, the law implicitly contains an understanding of well-being comparable to a hybrid conception of well-being from a medical ethics perspective. According to this conception, fulfilment of a person’s wishes generally contributes to her well-being, although certain objective criteria are also taken into consideration. (shrink)

Definition of the problem The reform of German guardianship law coming into force in 2023 will remove the term “well-being” from the law. This is intended to emphasise that the legal guardian should be guided by the subjective wishes of the person rather than by an objective understanding of well-being. This article analyses the understanding of well-being underlying the reformed guardianship law in comparison to common conceptions of well-being in philosophy and medical ethics, aiming to promote interdisciplinary understanding between ethics (...) and law. Arguments The justification for the reform emphasises that the law is based on a subjective understanding of well-being. However, this understanding does not correspond to philosophical subjective theories of well-being, according to which only things that a person desires can contribute to her well-being. In contrast, the guardianship law assumes that the fulfilment of certain wishes can lead to objective harm to the person and thus impair her well-being. Negative consequences for the objective well-being of a person are only relevant insofar as they indicate a limit to following current wishes that are based on a natural will and are not an expression of self-determination. Conclusion While the term “well-being” is removed from reformed guardianship law, the law implicitly contains an understanding of well-being comparable to a hybrid conception of well-being from a medical ethics perspective. According to this conception, fulfilment of a person’s wishes generally contributes to her well-being, although certain objective criteria are also taken into consideration. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungBei gerichtlich angeordneten Unterbringungen aufgrund von Eigen- oder Fremdgefährdung können Patientenverfügungen zu klinisch und ethisch schwierigen Situationen führen. Dies gilt vor allem dann, wenn darin medizinisch indizierte psychiatrische Behandlungsmaßnahmen abgelehnt werden. In solchen Situationen können Patienten zunächst weder aus dem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus entlassen noch psychiatrisch behandelt werden. Der vorliegende Beitrag erörtert ethische Herausforderungen im Zusammenhang mit Therapieablehnungen durch Patientenverfügungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive. Dabei werden die rechtlichen Grundlagen und Grenzen einer Patientenverfügung aufgezeigt. Mit Blick auf die klinische Praxis (...) werden die normativen Voraussetzungen einer wirksamen Vorausverfügung analysiert. Darüber hinaus werden ethische Argumente für und gegen die Anwendung von Zwangsmaßnahmen und -behandlungen in Situationen von Eigen- oder Fremdgefährdung diskutiert. Die Identifizierung normativ relevanter Aspekte soll dazu beitragen, in der klinisch-psychiatrischen Praxis zu ethisch begründeten Entscheidungen im Kontext von vorausverfügten Therapieablehnungen zu gelangen.In der Schlussbetrachtung wird aufgezeigt, welche Implikationen sich aus der rechtlichen Bindungskraft von Patientenverfügungen für die klinische Praxis ergeben. Auf einer übergeordneten Ebene wird das ethische Spannungsverhältnis, das sich durch den bestehenden gesellschaftlichen Sicherungsauftrag der Psychiatrie in Situationen von Eigen- oder Fremdgefährdung ergibt, problematisiert. Auf der Ebene des individuellen Arzt-Patienten-Verhältnisses stellen wir die Bedeutung von Beratungs- und Unterstützungsangeboten für die Abfassung von Vorausverfügungen dar und plädieren dafür, in Beratungsgesprächen auch die weitreichenden und komplexen Konsequenzen Therapieablehnungen zu erörtern. (shrink)