Emma Phillips

The purpose of this article is to share with the reader the specific findings on the role of nurse as consumer advocate from a study on ethical decision-making in an emergency department (ED). Qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 health professionals (doctors and nurses) working in the ED of a hospital. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.In ED, where the decision-making is described as medico-centric, advocacy ipso facto necessitates a challenge to doctor decision-making. The findings indicate that ED nurses experience with advocacy varied depending on the democratic qualities and communication skills of the particular doctor who had care of the consumer. It is noted that seeing the need for advocacy does not necessarily translate into effective action, as management support is essential for productive advocacy. A phenomenon of the desire not to rock the boat was reported. The findings indicate that the support of other nurses is essential for advocacy and affirm the importance of focusing on the ethical nature of the organisation as opposed to an exclusive focus on the individual.

This article presents the findings of qualitative research which explored, from the mothers’ perspective, the process of decision-making about mode of delivery for a subsequent birth after a previous Caesarean Section. In contradiction to the clinical literature, the majority of mothers in this study were strongly of the opinion that a vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) posed a higher risk than an elective caesarean (EC). From the mothers’ perspective, risk discussions were primarily valuable for gaining support for their pre-determined choice, rather than obtaining information. The findings posit ethical concerns with regards to informed consent and professional obstetric practice at a time when there is a documented and worrying trend towards an increase in births by caesarean section (CS).

Despite the extensive consideration the notion of informed consent has heralded in recent decades, the unique considerations pertaining to the giving of informed consent by and on behalf of Indigenous Australians have not been comprehensively explored; to the contrary, these issues have been scarcely considered in the literature to date. This deficit is concerning, given that a fundamental premise of the doctrine of informed consent is that of individual autonomy, which, while privileged as a core value of non-Indigenous Australian culture, is displaced in Indigenous cultures by the honouring of the family unit and community group, rather than the individual, as being at the core of important decision-making processes relating to the person. To address the hiatus in the bioethical literature on issues relating to informed consent for Aboriginal peoples, the following article provides findings from a two-year research project, funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), conducted in the Northern Territory. The findings, situated in the context of the literature on cultural safety, highlight the difference between the Aboriginal and biomedical perspectives on informed consent.