Elizabeth Lanphier

This paper raises three concerns regarding self-ownership rhetoric to describe autonomy within healthcare in general and reproductive justice in specific. First, private property and the notion of “ownership” embedded in “self-ownership,” rely on and replicate historical injustices related to the initial acquisition of property. Second, not all individuals are recognized as selves with equal access to self-ownership. Third, self-ownership only justifies negative liberties. To fully protect healthcare access and reproductive care in specific, we must also be able to make claims on others to respect, protect, and fulfill our positive rights. As much as nondomination remains an urgent demand for reproductive rights, it does not go far enough to ensure reproductive justice.

This paper responds to a proposal for an intersectional approach to the clinical encounter between patient and medical provider. We agree that an intersectional framework offers new insights and information in the clinical encounter. Intersectionality involves awareness of the physician-patient dynamic, and understanding the various privileges and disadvantages of all parties involved, at a micro and macroscopic level. Yet, this analysis alone is insufficient to aid in the clinical encounter and risks harm. We worry about a clinician making assumptions about her patient’s race, gender, economic status, and how these influence the patient’s own views of her life and health. We argue that a narrative supplement is a necessary element of intersectional clinical encounters. Prioritizing patient narrative curtails assumptions, builds trust, and improves care.

Narrative is now a commonly used term in medical education, ethics, and practice. Yet the concept of narrative defies singular definition, and definitional and functional pluralism about narrative in health care remains underappreciated. Diverse conceptualizations of narrative are generically grouped under umbrella terms like “medical humanities” or “narrative medicine.” Such broad grouping risks undermining attention to relevant differences in use, meaning, or theory of narrative, overestimating the scope of certain criticisms of narrative practice or use, while overlooking more insidious concerns. This essay moves toward a conceptual clarification of narrative in medicine through a process of naming and sorting. Narrative conceptualizations are grouped into narrative premises which include descriptive and normative claims about narrative, and narrative practices, which put narrative into action as process, method, or tool. A philosophical pragmatist approach to narrative in medicine reworks narrative anxieties about fact and fiction, truth or falsehood, in terms of the justifiability of belief, the inclusion or exclusion of experience, and the rationality of practices that are never perfect and always up for revision.

We argue for the addition of trauma informed awareness, training, and skill in clinical ethics consultation by proposing a novel framework for Trauma Informed Ethics Consultation (TIEC). This approach expands on the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) framework for, and key insights from feminist approaches to, ethics consultation, and the literature on trauma informed care (TIC). TIEC keeps ethics consultation in line with the provision of TIC in other clinical settings. Most crucially, TIEC (like TIC) is systematically sensitive to culture, history, difference, power, social exclusion, oppression, and marginalization. By engaging a neonatal intensive care ethics consult example, we define our TIEC approach and illustrate its application. Through TIEC we argue it is the role of ethics consultants to not only hold open moral spaces, but to furnish them in morally habitable ways for all stakeholders involved in the ethics consultation process, including patients, surrogates, and practitioners.

In this paper, we propose some ways in which teaching thought experiments in an ethics classroom may result in marginalizing or excluding students underrepresented in philosophy. Although thought experiments are designed to strip away details and pump intuitions, we argue that they may reinforce assumptions and stereotypes. As examples, we discuss several well-known thought experiments that may typically be included in undergraduate ethics courses, such as Bernard Williams’s Gauguin and Derek Parfit’s The Young Girl’s Child. We analyze the potential value and dangers or teaching these thought experiments. We conclude with some practical suggestions for how to teach thought experiments in ways that encourage students to expand their moral imaginations and think critically about their own assumptions and the assumptions built into thought experiments.

Not only is deception commonplace in medical encounters, according to Christopher Meyers (2021), but the clinical ethicist might have moral obligations to support and even enact deception. Descriptively Meyers is right that there are “opportunistic, self-interested and benevolent reasons” for deception through omission and commission in clinical medicine. But it is possible to retain this premise while rejecting the normative conclusion that the clinical ethicist “should sometimes be an active participant in the deception of patients and families.” One reason to reject the normative conclusion is its incompatibility with providing trauma informed ethics consultation (TIEC). In the TIEC framework I developed with Uchenna Anani, we defend the integration of trauma informed care (TIC) into ethics consultation (Lanphier and Anani 2021). While ethicists narrowly attend to the question and scope of the ethics consults made to them, doing so in alignment with trauma informed principles is tantamount to providing good ethics consultation. According to Meyers, the clinical ethicist is an “advocate for the best ethical choices.” The best ethical choices are also trauma informed ones.

We intuitively think and talk about health care as a human right. Moreover, we tend to talk about health in the language of basic rights or human rights without a clear sense of what such rights mean, let alone whose duty it is to fulfill them. Additionally, in the care ethics literature, we tend to think of a dividing line between care and justice. In this dissertation I aim to draw care and justice together in what I call care justice. To attend to care justice requires the reconceptualization of the value and practice of health care, and of the moral communities in which we enact care and justice. First, I argue for a strong right to health care, though not to health. Second, I argue that health care includes much more than mere medical care. On this account health care is special for the practices of care it values and communicates. Third, I establish a theoretical framework for why, and importantly how, health care entails other forms of care: social, economic and political. My approach engages a complicity framework to rethink moral community formation and participation, and the rights and responsibilities of individuals as participants in a collective moral community. I argue that it is within communities of membership, which I define as ethical homes, that we have duties to and expectations from others. The moral community as complicit ethical home provides a way to reimagine individual shared responsibility within moral communities, and particularly regarding responsibility for practices of care.

Can Covid-19 vaccines be used off-label? Should they be? These were questions on the minds of parents, pediatricians, and the media when the FDA fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine for people aged 16 and up. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics cautioned against pediatric off-label use of the vaccine, and the CDC Covid-19 Vaccine Provider Agreement appears to prohibit it. After briefly contextualizing ethical and legal precedents regarding off-label use, we offer an analysis of the ethical permissibility of and considerations for pediatric off-label Covid-19 vaccination based on individual benefits, risks, and available alternatives. Our analysis challenges the ethics of a blanket prohibition on off-label pediatric Covid-19 vaccination, as it limits clinician ability to provide care they may determine to be clinically and ethically appropriate. At the same time, our analysis acknowledges that Covid-19 creates population-level ethical considerations that are at times in tension with individual health interests.

In “Obligations of the Gift” Sandra Lee (2021) suggests that social norms of reciprocity and the expectations and obligations associated with gift-giving afford a framework for addressing social justice considerations in precision medicine. Lee is particularly concerned with obligations to marginalized or oppressed racial and ethnic groups, which are also historically under-represented populations in precision medicine. Obligations arise, Lee argues, through the “gift” that research participants make when they contribute their data or biospecimens to precision medicine research. This conceptualization of research participation is distinct from an altruistic donation model that explicitly precludes obligations of reciprocity. I agree with Lee’s overall project to support social justice aims by better recognizing responsibilities of researchers to their research participants, and increasing diverse participation in biomedical research. However, I am not convinced that the account of “the gift” she deploys can achieve the social justice goals she intends because it risks replicating rather than resisting problematic conceptions of labor, property, and ownership of selves and others. However, an alternate conceptualization of “the gift” found in the work of 20th century French philosopher Jacques Derrida recasts ethical obligations on the part of precision medicine to those who contribute their data and biospecimens for precision medicine research.

In ‘The Complex Case of Ellie Anderson’, Joona Rasanen and Anna Smajdor raise several ethical questions about the case. One question asks, but does not answer, whether Ellie faced discrimination for being transgender when her mother was not allowed access to Ellie’s sperm following her death. In raising the question, the authors imply anti-trans bias may have influenced this determination. However, this inference is not supported by current ethical and legal guidance for posthumous use of gametes, with which Ellie’s case is consistent. We consider the authors’ responses to their other ethical queries, and how their suggestions for what options might have been available to Ellie and her family are instructive for addressing attempts in the USA and UK to restrict minors’ access to gender-affirming medical treatment, including puberty-blocking therapy.

I argue for a conception of moral community as “ethical home,” in which home is a hybrid public and private concept, cohered through members’ complicit participation in the formation and endorsement of the community’s values and practices. In this essay I present and defend three premises that comprise my argument for this conception of moral community as an ethical home. First, I make a case for why “home” is an apt conception of moral community, defining the features of home relevant to my claim, and clarifying which connotations of home I am abandoning by modifying home to be an “ethical” home. Second, I illustrate how when the concept of moral community is conceptualized as an ethical home, it is formed and defined by a community’s practices of moral self-definition, that occur within the ethical home-making process. Third, I claim that the process of ethical home-making, through moral self-definition around cohering values and practices, renders members of an ethical home as both rights holders within the ethical home, and as having shared responsibility for their fellow ethical home members.

In “Communication Breakdown: Probing the Limits of Narrative Medicine and its Discontents” (2019), David J. Leichter engages practical experience teaching medical ethics in the college classroom to explore opportunities—and limits—of narrative engagement within medical ethics and clinical practice. Leichter raises concerns regarding potential epistemic harms, both testimonial and hermeneutical, when individuals, or their pain, cannot be adequately recognized through expressive modes traditionally understood as “narrative.” While I largely agree with Leichter’s worries about narrative authority and limits, I challenge his characterization of “narrative medicine.” In response, I suggest that “narrative medicine” is more than merely narrative engagement in medicine. As theorized by Rita Charon (2001, 2006), “narrative medicine” involves an inclusive approach to what narrative is, and more than mere mastery of “narrative competency.” I argue that at least one way to conceptualize “narrative medicine” is as a technical term, which refers to the process of attention, representation, and affiliation Charon develops as the achievement of narrative medicine. When understood in this technical way, narrative medicine can both resist and respond to the kinds of epistemic harms about which Leichter is rightfully worried.

I propose a revisionary reading of Plato’s Crito focusing on the dramatic rendering of the friendship between Crito and Socrates, which I argue affords a model for political participation in a social contract. Their friendship models how citizens can come to be conventionally related to one another, and how they should treat one another internal to that relationship. This approach is apt for contemporary democratic theory, perhaps more so than standard interpretations of the political theory traditionally mined from the text, rather than drama, of the Crito. My account moves beyond questions of civility in deliberative democratic politics and deepens an account of how and why we ought to regard those with whom we disagree, but to whom we have nonetheless quasi-voluntarily bound ourselves within the same project of democracy. Friendship also addresses regard for those who have not previously received equal consideration within a putatively democratic social contract.

In ‘Ethics of sharing medical knowledge with the community: is the physician responsible for medical outreach during a pandemic?’ Strous and Karni note that the revised physician’s pledge in the World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva obligates individual physicians to share medical knowledge, which they interpret to mean a requirement to share knowledge publicly and through outreach. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, Strous and Karni defend a form of medical paternalism insofar as the individual physician must reach out to communities who may not want, or know to seek out, medical advice, for reasons of public health and health equity. Strous and Karni offer a novel defence of why physicians ought to intervene even in insular communities, and they offer suggestions for how this could be done in culturally sensitive ways. Yet their view rests on an unfounded interpretation of the Geneva Declaration language. More problematically, their paper confuses shared and collective responsibility, misattributing the scope of individual physician obligations in potentially harmful ways. In response, this reply delineates between shared and collective responsibility, and suggests that to defend the obligation of medical outreach Strous and Karni propose, it is better conceptualised as a collective responsibility of the medical profession, rather than a shared responsibility of individual physicians. This interpretation rejects paternalism on the part of individual providers in favour of a more sensitive and collaborative practice of knowledge sharing between physicians and communities, and in the service of collective responsibility.

Care ethics has a curious relationship to justice. Care theorists alternately portray justice as separate from yet at times intersecting with, parallel and distinct from, or falling within yet secondary to care. Theories of justice tend to imagine an ideal world, and reason about justice from an imagined universal position. Care ethics, on the other hand, respond to a philosophical history in which abstract universal reasoning occludes the particular needs and contributions of marginalized or oppressed groups. I argue that care ethics is a kind of nonideal theory. I further argue that understanding care ethics as nonideal theory does two things. One, it draws care and justice into conversation with each other such that neither one is prior: both can be produced through practices of justice enacted through care, and care that responds to justice. Moreover, health care models the way in which care and justice must work in tandem. Two, care theory as nonideal theory invites an institutional ethic of care. An institutional ethic of care is modeled by, and at the same time can strengthen, existing health care practices. Such an ethic builds on the feminist scholarship deconstructing dichotomous binaries, including gendered dichotomies between justice and care. In conclusion, I raise the possibility that an institutional ethic of care might reveal a porous boundary between an ideal/nonideal theory binary.

Rosamond Rhodes has written a welcome, clear, and expansive yet precise book that challenges the hegemonic influence of principlism in biomedical ethics and presents a viable alternative. At the outset, Rhodes critiques the idea of common morality underpinning the four principles from Tom Beauchamp and James Childress's Principles of Biomedical Ethics and ten rules from Bernard Gert, Charles Culver, and K. Danner Clouser in Bioethics: A Systematic Approach. Rhodes not only argues for why medicine is unlike everyday practices and requires a unique ethics but also offers a positive program to meet medicine's "uncommon morality."This "uncommon morality" gives rise to sixteen duties that guide medical practice. Each...

ABSTRACT:This essay explores how bioethics as a field, rather than as a collection of individual efforts by bioethicists working within it, can inform deliberation on matters of bioethical import that, for better or worse, are in the hands of civic processes. It is motivated by the repeal of a constitutional protection of abortion access in the Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which effectively returned abortion regulations to states rather than setting a baseline federal protection of abortion access up to fetal viability. Given the outsized role of local legislators in shaping health-care policy through legislation, about abortion as well as other health topics, the author proposes foundational bioethical education for legislators and considers two potential models for such education: one that operates on a clinical ethics consultation model, and one that mirrors bioethical coursework taught in traditional academic settings but modified for a legislator audience. Although both models present notable challenges requiring further conceptualization and problem-solving, overcoming these hurdles would enable bioethics to provide a service to civic learning and placemaking that would complement advocacy or lobbying efforts by individual bioethicists.

Background: While employers are increasingly considering and implementing COVID-19 vaccination requirements, little is known about the reasons offered by employees seeking religious exemptions.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods analysis of all the requests for religious exemptions submitted during the initial implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination requirement at a single academic medical center in the United States.Results: Five hundred sixty-five (3.4%) employees requested religious exemptions. At least 305 (54.0%) requesters had job titles suggesting that they had direct patient contact. Four hundred ninety-nine (88.3%) of requesters self-identified as Christian, of whom 120 (21.2%) identified as Roman Catholic. Requesters offered 0 to 8 (mean 2.7) categories of reasons for their request. The most frequently stated reasons pertained to the use of fetal cell lines in vaccine development and manufacturing (382, 67.6%), interest in maintaining purity (221, 39.1%), or belief in divine healing (172, 30.4%). Some requesters also volunteered evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs including examples of their religious practices (116, 20.5%), other practices (66, 11.7%), and emotional states (32, 5.7%). One hundred fifty-two applications (26.9%) contained text copied without attribution, primarily from sample religious exemption request letters available on the Internet.Conclusions: Most requesters focused on the use of fetal cell lines in the development or manufacturing of the vaccines as the justification for their request. The development of vaccines that are not reliant on fetal cell lines may increase vaccination rates. Understanding reasons for religious exemption requests may inform vaccine education and vaccination policies.

In ‘The ethics of consent during labour and birth: episiotomies,’ van der Pijl et al 1 respond to the prevalence of unconsented procedures during labour, proposing a set of necessary features for adequate consent to episiotomy. Their model emphasises information sharing, value exploration and trust between a pregnant person and their healthcare provider(s). While focused on consent to episiotomy, van der Pijl et al contend their approach may be applicable to consent for other procedures during labour and beyond pregnancy-related care. One feature of their model for adequate informed consent is trust in the systems in which prenatal and labour and delivery care are provided. Yet, for some pregnant persons, mistrust in health systems is a reasonable sequela of experiences like racism and epistemic injustice. For a programme in which trust is central to adequate consent, it is important to identify—and counter—forms of mistrust toward pregnant persons within healthcare and acknowledge and rectify reasonable mistrust of pregnant persons toward healthcare. Like other kinds of healthcare disparities, van der Pijl et al note that ‘the burden of unconsented procedures is not evenly distributed over groups’ and tracks with ‘racial, socioeconomic and other disparities in maternity care’. They are drawing on data from a less diverse context than the one …