Getting to YES. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

The Right and the Good

In 1995, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) jointly published a statement on genetic testing in children and adolescents. In the past 20 years, much has changed in the field of genetics, including the development of powerful new technologies, new data from genetic research on children and adolescents, and substantial clinical experience. This statement represents current opinion by the ASHG on the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning genetic testing in children. These recommendations are relevant to families, clinicians, and investigators. After a brief review of the 1995 statement and major changes in genetic technologies in recent years, this statement offers points to consider on a broad range of test technologies and their applications in clinical medicine and research. Recommendations are also made for record and communication issues in this domain and for professional education.

Points to Consider: Ethical, Legal, and Psychosocial Implications of Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents

Inevitably, reading is one of the requirements to be undergone. To improve the performance and quality, someone needs to have something new every day. It will suggest you to have more inspirations, then. However, the needs of inspirations will make you searching for some sources. Even from the other people experience, internet, and many books. Books and internet are the recommended media to help you improving your quality and performance.

/pdf/medicine-rationality-and-experience-an-anthropological-jqdxht1k2e.pdf

Medicine, rationality, and experience: an anthropological perspective.

This article provides an overview of the current literature on seven cancer sites that may disproportionately affect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) populations. For each cancer site, the authors present and discuss the descriptive statistics, primary prevention, secondary prevention and preclinical disease, tertiary prevention and late-stage disease, and clinical implications. Finally, an overview of psychosocial factors related to cancer survivorship is offered as well as strategies for improving access to care.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21288

Cancer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) populations.

Between 15 and 60% of patients are considered "difficult" by their treating physicians. Patient psychiatric pathology is the conventional explanation for why patients are deemed "difficult." But the prevalence of the problem suggests the possibility of a less pathological cause. I argue that the phenomenon can be better explained as a response to problematic interactions related to health care delivery. If there are grounds to reconceive the "difficult" patient as reacting to the perception of ill treatment, then there is an ethical obligation to address this perception of harm. Resolution of such conflicts currently lies with the provider and patient. But the ethical stakes place these conflicts into the province of the ethics consult service. As the resource for addressing ethical dilemmas, there is a moral mandate to offer assistance in the resolution of these ethically charged conflicts that is no less pressing than the more familiar terrain of clinical ethics consultation.

/pdf/the-difficult-patient-reconceived-an-expanded-moral-mandate-4ii8bk7l9m.pdf

The "difficult" patient reconceived: an expanded moral mandate for clinical ethics.

The medical community has hailed the recent movement to provide patient-centered care as a progressive step forward in meeting the needs of the very diverse patient population of the United States. Stakeholders in all arenas of U.S. medicine-professional organizations, public advocacy groups, hospital administration, medical school leadership, insurance carriers, and nursing-have embraced the focus on patient-centered care. But, although the community universally endorses the ideal of patient-centered care, the ethical obligations it entails have only just begun to be explored. One of the most difficult circumstances in which to provide patient-centered care is when there is a deep cultural conflict-that is, when the values and priorities of the patient and his or her family are in direct opposition to those of the clinical team. Given the mandate to provide care that is "culturally and linguistically appropriate," the author asks what obligations providers have to meet patient demands when doing so is inconvenient, challenging, or, at the extreme, offensive and contrary to clinical values. The author examines the tension that occurs when culturally sensitive patient-centered care disrupts the workflow of the service, requires acknowledging antithetical, unsupportable values, or entails discriminatory or ad hominem practices that constitute a personal insult or affront to the provider. The strategy the author has invoked for this analysis is to search for common values that might provide a bridge between patients and providers who are in deep cultural conflict.

/pdf/what-patient-centered-care-requires-in-serious-cultural-3fwizumtra.pdf

What "patient-centered care" requires in serious cultural conflict.

The clinical ethics framework that is typically taught to medical students and residents is deeply flawed, and the result of using this framework exclusively to resolve ethical conflicts at the bedside is compromised patient care. The author calls this framework the principlist paradigm and maintains that it blinds clinicians from seeing the full set of moral obligations they have to the patient and limits the range of options they see as available to navigate through ethical conflicts. Although it is important for the moral obligations it does recognize (e.g., those based on the principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice), the principlist paradigm should not be used as the only moral template for case analysis. The author illustrates the paradigm's limitations with a clinical case study, in which the treating clinicians failed to recognize three important moral obligations to the patient: the obligation to express regret, the obligation to apologize, and the obligation to make amends. The failure to recognize these widely accepted moral obligations can have tragic consequences. The principlist paradigm undertrains clinicians for the complex ethical dilemmas they face in practice, and medical ethics educators need to rethink the tools they offer student clinicians to guide their ethical analysis. The author advocates a reexamination of this standard approach to teaching clinical ethics.

Viewpoint: why the clinical ethics we teach fails patients.

Clinical ethics consultations (CECs) 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.”

/pdf/neglected-ends-clinical-ethics-consultation-and-the-350u3auq1f.pdf

Neglected ends: clinical ethics consultation and the prospects for closure.

The issue of human reproductive cloning has recently received a great deal attention in public discourse. Bioethicists, policy makers, and the media have been quick to identify the key ethical issues involved in human reproductive cloning and to argue, almost unanimously, for an international ban on such attempts. Meanwhile, scientists have proceeded with extensive research agendas in the cloning of animals. Despite this research, there has been little public discussion of the ethical issues raised by animal cloning projects. Polling data show that the public is decidedly against the cloning of animals. To understand the public's reaction and fill the void of reasoned debate about the issue, we need to review the possible objections to animal cloning and assess the merits of the anti-animal cloning stance. Some objections to animal cloning (e.g., the impact of cloning on the population of unwanted animals) can be easily addressed, while others (e.g., the health of cloned animals) require more serious attention by the public and policy makers.

/pdf/ethical-issues-in-animal-cloning-1b1vibuie0.pdf

Autumn Fiester

Papers

The "difficult" patient reconceived: an expanded moral mandate for clinical ethics.

What "patient-centered care" requires in serious cultural conflict.

Viewpoint: why the clinical ethics we teach fails patients.

Neglected ends: clinical ethics consultation and the prospects for closure.

Ethical Issues in Animal Cloning