Joseph Fins

What's not to like about shared decision‐making? These programs employ specially crafted decision aids to educate patients about their treatment options and then merge the newly informed patient preferences, both general and treatment‐specific, with guidance from physicians to optimize medical decisions. Sounds great, right? Even better, recent evidence indicates that shared decision‐making programs may also help bend the proverbial cost curve by reducing the use of medical interventions that patients, now properly educated about their options, often say they do not want. The notion that programs to inform and elicit patient choice might also help to align health care delivery with patient preferences for less invasive and therefore less costly treatment options seems the rarest of mutual wins in health care, in which what is best for the individual might also benefit the whole. Yet there has been scant attention to how the goals of patient care and cost‐containment, and perhaps even profitability, coincide or conflict.

The restructuring of the healthcare marketplace has exerted pressure directly and indirectly on clinical ethics programs. The fiscal orientation and emphasis on efficiency, outcome measures, and cost control have made it increasingly difficult to communicate arguments in support of the existence or growth of ethics programs. In the current marketplace, arguments that rely on the claim that ethics programs protect patient rights or assist in the professional formation of practitioners often result in minimal levels of funding and preclude program growth. Where ethics programs could once sustain themselves on goodwill alone and values arguments in an expanding healthcare market they are now encountering—at least by anecdotal reports—cutbacks and even elimination. To respond to these challenges, we offer an economic model that can be used to demonstrate the “value” of an institutionally based ethics program.

I would like to share some reflections on how bioethics fosters dialogue between the sciences and humanities by talking a bit about my work as a physician-ethicist collaborating with neuroscientists studying severe brain injury and mechanisms of recovery. If I am successful in this Pilgrim's Progress, I hope I will convince you that the injured brain can teach us much about ourselves. It is not something I was prepared to believe as a medical student, when I was more certain of things than I am now

Background The globalization of medical science carries for doctors worldwide a correlative duty to deepen their understanding of patients' cultural contexts and religious backgrounds, in order to satisfy each as a unique individual. To become better informed, practitioners may turn to MedLine, but it is unclear whether the information found there is an accurate representation of culture and religion. To test MedLine's representation of this field, we chose the topic of death and dying in the three major monotheistic religions. Methods We searched MedLine using PubMed in order to retrieve and thematically analyze full-length scholarly journal papers or case reports dealing with religious traditions and end-of-life care. Our search consisted of a string of words that included the most common denominations of the three religions, the standard heading terms used by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature (NRCBL), and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) used by the National Library of Medicine. Eligible articles were limited to English-language papers with an abstract. Results We found that while a bibliographic search in MedLine on this topic produced instant results and some valuable literature, the aggregate reflected a selection bias. American writers were over-represented given the global prevalence of these religious traditions. Denominationally affiliated authors predominated in representing the Christian traditions. The Islamic tradition was under-represented. Conclusion MedLine's capability to identify the most current, reliable and accurate information about purely scientific topics should not be assumed to be the same case when considering the interface of religion, culture and end-of-life care.

Incapacitated adults with a legally appointed guardian or conservator may be recruited for or involved with medical, behavioral, or social science research. Much of the research in which such persons participate is aimed at evaluating medical interventions for them, or contributing to general knowledge about disorders from which they may suffer. In this paper we will consider how the appointment of guardians for patients with disorders of consciousness —severe brain injuries that affect a patient’s level of arousal and ability to interact —impacts such patients’ access to research.Such persons may be under guardianship because they have lost decisional capacity (i.e., those in a coma or...

In this 25-year retrospective on the state of clinical ethics, and the anniversary of the founding of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, the author comments on the state of the field. He argues that the language of bioethics, as used in practice, seems dated and out of touch with a clinical reality marked by emerging technologies and the advent of new fields like palliative medicine.Reflecting on his experiences as a clinician and clinical ethicist, the author worries about the emergence of a shallow bioethics, which is the product of a lingua franca. This linguistic amalgam is a weak composite in which concepts are simplified and nuance is overlooked, leading to interpretative errors. The best of ethical reasoning or clinical decision making can be lost in translation. Instead of the well-worn arguments over the relative worth of modes of ethical analysis, like principlism or pragmatism, the author argues that the emphasis should be on the cultivation of the “linguistic” skills necessary for translating any critical method in order to replace the lingua franca of clinical ethics with a more substantial discourse worthy of the complexity of the clinic. Through the emergence of such a shared language, at the interface of the sciences and the humanities, this multidisciplinary field can evolve towards more authentic interdisciplinarity.

Edmund Pellegrino noted that contemporary medicine is to a large extent a North American product, and so too is the ethics that accompanies it. This was an accurate observation back in the 1980s when he said it. Even today bioethics is to a considerable extent informed by the seminal works of the Anglo-American model, at least seen from the United States. The dissemination of ideas from the Spanish-speaking world has been nearly invisible to the English-speaking world of bioethics, isolated by language and culture from intellectual currents abroad