Jason Adam Wasserman

We have previously argued that clinicians should leverage conscience, rather than quasi-objective clinical standards, to justify their refusal to provide aggressive interventions to patients who were likely permanently unconscious. Such a move sidesteps perennial disagreements over concepts such as “futility,” “harm,” and “best interest”; and it is consistent with the growing acknowledgement of value pluralism in healthcare. In this paper, we make similar arguments about the conscience rights of institutions. We argue that, like individuals, healthcare organizations can leverage conscience claims to justify institution-wide prohibitions on some medical interventions that are legal and within the standard of care. Of course, faith-based healthcare institutions already enjoy institutional conscience protections. We argue that secular institutions can also claim conscience protections to refuse some kinds of interventions on the basis of system-level moral commitments.

To address the current lack of knowledge about clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs), we surveyed all 36 programs in the U.S. and Canada. The number of CEFPs has grown exponentially over the last 40 years and far exceeds previous estimates. Commonalities among CEFPs include: 88.8% require an advanced degree or rarely accept applicants without one; 91.7% of programs do not restrict applicants to a specific background such as medicine or philosophy; and 88.9% of programs compensate fellows. CEFPs vary widely on numbers of fellows trained in the last 3 years (1–111), numbers of consultations performed by each fellow (0–450), and salaries paid ($0-$95,000). Less than half of programs meet CEFP standards established by ABPD. Nonpaying programs and larger programs tend to have lower admission standards and lower expectations for fellows. We hope these data will help inform CEFP standards that promote quality and consistency without stifling desirable diversity and innovation.

Some physicians refuse to perform life-sustaining interventions, such as tracheostomy, on patients who are very likely to remain permanently unconscious. To explain their refusal, these clinicians often invoke the language of “futility”, but this can be inaccurate and can mask problematic forms of clinical power. This paper explores whether such refusals should instead be framed as conscientious objections. We contend that the refusal to provide interventions for patients very likely to remain permanently unconscious meets widely recognized ethical standards for the exercise of conscience. We conclude that conscientious objection to tracheostomy and other life-sustaining interventions on such patients can be ethical because it does not necessarily constitute a form of invidious discrimination. Furthermore, when a physician frames their refusal as conscientious objection, it makes transparent the value-laden nature of their objection and can better facilitate patient access to the requested treatment.

KEY: Patients or families sometimes demand interventions that are of no benefit or are even harmful. Even in cases where cardiopulmonary resuscitation is futile or medically inappropriate, instituting a do not attempt resuscitation order requires either consent of the patient or family, or working through a cumbersome and conflictual institutional process to change code status over their objection. Sometimes they contest these decisions in court and sometimes they win. Avoiding such conflicts gave rise to the practice of “slow codes,” a situation in which the healthcare team responds to cardiac arrest in a patient in a deliberately slow or perfunctory manner, with the intention of not resuscitating the patient at all. Slow codes have been nearly universally decried as unethical in the literature, at least over the last three decades. After all, a slow code is fundamentally dishonest. But critics tend to avoid the socio‐political and clinical realities that motivate the use of slow codes in the first place. In this article, I argue that in the context of judicial and legislative overreach into medical decision‐making, the slow code serves a distinctly moral purpose beyond promoting the welfare of the patient: It is an act of disobedience against an unethical system.

There are increasing calls for coverage of medicine during the Holocaust in medical school curricula. This article describes outcomes from a Holocaust and medicine educational program featuring a study trip to Poland, which focused on physician complicity during the Holocaust, as well as moral courage in health professionals who demonstrated various forms of resistance in the ghettos and concentration camps. The trip included tours of key sites in Krakow, Oswiecim, and the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps, as well as meeting with survivors, lectures, reflective writings, and discussions. In-depth interviews and reflective writings were qualitatively analyzed. Resulting themes centered on greater understanding of the relationship between bioethics and the Holocaust, recognizing the need for moral courage and social awareness, deeper appreciation for the historical roles played by dehumanization and medical power and their contemporary manifestations, and the power of presence and experiential learning for bioethics education and professional identity formation. These findings evidence the significant impact of the experience and suggest broader adoption of pedagogies that include place-based and experiential learning coupled with critical reflection can amplify the impact of bioethics and humanism education as well as the process of professional identity formation of medical students.

To succeed, an accreditation process for clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs) would need support from CEFP directors. To assess CEFP directors’ opinions, we surveyed all 36 CEFP directors in the United States and Canada, achieving a 100% response rate. We found that support for accreditation is strong, with 30.6% strongly supportive, 44.4% supportive, 22.2% neutral, 2.8% opposed, and 0% strongly opposed. Most directors (77.8%) would be likely to apply for accreditation within the next five years regardless of the availability of government funding; even more (86.1%) would apply if government funding became available for accredited programs. Most directors thought that lack of a national accreditation process (75.0%), lack of agreed-upon standards (90.0%), and lack of funding for CEFPs (91.7%) were at least moderate problems for the field. When directors were asked what they thought was the greatest challenge or barrier to developing an accreditation process, many mentioned the diversity of programs and the challenge of achieving consensus on accreditation standards. Directors offered a variety of suggestions for how to overcome or manage challenges or barriers, including collecting data on existing programs, mirroring standards established for other health professions, and setting clear expectations on the need for compromise. When directors were asked how they expected that accreditation and government funding would affect their own programs, the field of clinical ethics, and patient care, directors mostly had very positive expectations; no director expected negative effects in any of these areas. Overall, this study provides evidence that developing an accreditation process for CEFPs would be both possible and desirable. Our findings have immediate practical implications for the field and will inform efforts that are already underway to establish an accreditation process for CEFPs.

Background This study assesses how pediatric assent is conceptualized and justified within the therapeutic context. Pediatric ethicists generally agree that children should participate in medical care decisions in developmentally appropriate ways. Much attention has been paid to pediatric assent for research participation, but ambiguities persist in how assent is conceptualized and operationalized in the therapeutic context where countervailing considerations such as the child’s best interest and parental permission must also be weighed.Methods Searches were conducted in 11 databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Articles published between 2010 and 2020 were screened in COVIDENCE for meeting each of four criteria: (1) focusing on pediatric assent, (2) focusing on clinical care, (3) including normative claims, and (4) containing substantive statements about the meaning of pediatric assent. Full texts were abstracted for (1) operational definitions of assent, (2) discussion of the temporal nature of assent, (3) description of the concept of “understanding,” and (4) ethical justifications for soliciting assent. These excerpts were coded and code patterns formed themes presented in the results.Results The final analytic data set contained 29 articles. Analysis yielded three key themes. First, valid assent varies by treatment, population (e.g., younger versus older), and geographic/cultural context. Second, assent represents two distinct longitudinal processes: One involves eliciting preferences over a disease course or care episode; the other focuses on children’s developmental maturation. Third, ethical justifications for assent draw variously on instrumental and intrinsic reasons, but often remain ambiguous.Conclusions There is widespread agreement that assent is morally valuable, but there remain substantial ambiguities or disagreements about its meaning, process, and ethical justification.

To address the current lack of knowledge about clinical ethics fellowship programs (CEFPs), we surveyed all 36 programs in the U.S. and Canada. The number of CEFPs has grown exponentially over the last 40 years and far exceeds previous estimates. Commonalities among CEFPs include: 88.8% require an advanced degree or rarely accept applicants without one; 91.7% of programs do not restrict applicants to a specific background such as medicine or philosophy; and 88.9% of programs compensate fellows. CEFPs vary widely on numbers of fellows trained in the last 3 years (1–111), numbers of consultations performed by each fellow (0–450), and salaries paid ($0-$95,000). Less than half of programs meet CEFP standards established by ABPD. Nonpaying programs and larger programs tend to have lower admission standards and lower expectations for fellows. We hope these data will help inform CEFP standards that promote quality and consistency without stifling desirable diversity and innovation.

Pediatric intervention principles help clinicians and health-care institutions determine appropriate responses when parents’ medical decisions place children at risk. Several intervention principles have been proposed and defended in the pediatric ethics literature. These principles may appear to provide conflicting guidance, but much of that conflict is superficial. First, seemingly different pediatric intervention principles sometimes converge on the same guidance. Second, these principles often aim to solve different problems in pediatrics or to operate in different background conditions. The potential for convergence between intervention principles—or at least an absence of conflict between them—matters for both the theory and practice of pediatric ethics. This article builds on the recent work of a diverse group of pediatric ethicists tasked with identifying consensus guidelines for pediatric decision-making.

Some physicians refuse to perform life-sustaining interventions, such as tracheostomy, on patients who are very likely to remain permanently unconscious. To explain their refusal, these clinicians often invoke the language of “futility”, but this can be inaccurate and can mask problematic forms of clinical power. This paper explores whether such refusals should instead be framed as conscientious objections. We contend that the refusal to provide interventions for patients very likely to remain permanently unconscious meets widely recognized ethical standards for the exercise of conscience. We conclude that conscientious objection to tracheostomy and other life-sustaining interventions on such patients can be ethical because it does not necessarily constitute a form of invidious discrimination. Furthermore, when a physician frames their refusal as conscientious objection, it makes transparent the value-laden nature of their objection and can better facilitate patient access to the requested treatment.

This article reports results of a survey about employment and compensation models for clinical ethics consultants working in the United States and discusses the relevance of these results for the professionalization of clinical ethics. This project uses self-reported data from healthcare ethics consultants to estimate compensation across different employment models. The average full-time annualized salary of respondents with a clinical doctorate is $188,310.08 (SD=$88,556.67), $146,134.85 (SD=$55,485.63) for those with a non-clinical doctorate, and $113,625.00 (SD=$35,872.96) for those with a masters as their highest degree. Pay differences across degree level and type were statistically significant (F = 3.43; p.

In light of the ongoing development and implementation of core competencies in bioethics, it is important to proceed with a clear sense of how bioethics knowledge is utilized in the functioning of hospital ethics committees (HECs). Without such an understanding, we risk building a costly edifice on a foundation that is ambiguous at best. This article examines the empirical relationship between traditional paradigms of bioethics theory and actual decision making by HEC members using survey data from HEC members. The assumption underlying the standardization of qualifications and corresponding call for increased education of HEC members is that they will base imminent case decisions on inculcated knowledge. Our data suggest, however, that HEC members first decide intuitively and then look for justification, thereby highlighting the need to re-examine the pedagogical processes of ethics education in the process of standardizing and improving competencies.

The purpose of this article is to highlight ways in which institutional policymakers tend to insufficiently conceptualise their role as ethics practitioners. We use the case of blood product recall notification as a means of raising questions about the way in which, as we have observed it, discourse for those who make institutional ethics policies is constrained by routine balancing of simplified principles to the exclusion of reflexive practices—those that turn ethics reasoning back on itself. The latter allows ethics practitioners with comparatively little formal training to take ownership of traditional parameters, which define their discussions and ultimately ought to make them more insightful when doing ethics. Thus, in the midst of calls for more training to increase the competency of ethics committees, we suggest that an additional problem of how these lay ethicists conceive of their roles also needs to be addressed.

The purpose of this article is to highlight ways in which institutional policymakers tend to insufficiently conceptualise their role as ethics practitioners. We use the case of blood product recall notification as a means of raising questions about the way in which, as we have observed it, discourse for those who make institutional ethics policies is constrained by routine balancing of simplified principles to the exclusion of reflexive practices—those that turn ethics reasoning back on itself. The latter allows ethics practitioners with comparatively little formal training to take ownership of traditional parameters, which define their discussions and ultimately ought to make them more insightful when doing ethics. Thus, in the midst of calls for more training to increase the competency of ethics committees, we suggest that an additional problem of how these lay ethicists conceive of their roles also needs to be addressed

In this commentary, I explore the usefulness of the framework Abram Brummett and Erica K. Salter present in their article “Mapping the Moral Terrain of Clinical Deception.” Deception cases are divisive because they nearly always evoke the metadilemma of clinical ethics: a clash between duties (in these cases, truth telling) and consequences (whatever good might come of the lie). Here, I describe a patient case in which the clinical team considered deceiving a patient about his pain‐medicine dosage in exchange for his allowing the clinicians to properly care for his percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube stoma, so as to prevent infection. Applying the framework that Brummett and Salter have developed helped our clinical team parse the numerous complex issues involved. The nuances of our case also illustrated additional ways in which the ethics of deception needs to be further refined.

There is a perpetrator historiography of the Holocaust and a Jewish historiography of the Holocaust. The former has received the lion’s share of attention in bioethics, particularly in the form of warnings about medicine’s potential for complicity in human atrocity. However, stories of Jewish physicians during the Holocaust are instructive for positive bioethics, one that moves beyond warnings about what not to do. In exercising both explicit and introspective forms of resistance, the heroic work of Jewish physicians in the ghettos and concentration camps tells us a great deal about the virtues and values of medicine. In this article, we frame the stories of four of these Jewish physicians in ways that are instructive for contemporary medicine. By far, the most widely recognized and discussed figure is Viktor Frankl, whose work on hope and the meaning of suffering remains essential insofar as medicine inherently confronts disease and death. Less discussed in bioethics and medical humanities are the cases of Mark Dworzecki, Karel Fleischmann, and Gisella Perl. Dworzecki’s efforts to encourage others in the Vilna Ghetto to document their experiences illustrates the power of narrative for the human experience and the notion of ethics as narrative in the face of suffering. Fleischmann’s art underscores not only the importance of reflective practices for professionals as a form of simultaneous introspection and testimonial, but illuminates hope amid sheer hopelessness. This hope, which was comparatively implicit in much of Fleishmann’s art, is explicated as a method by Frankl, becoming a form of therapy for both physicians wrestling with their professional work, and patients wrestling with their illnesses and diseases. Finally, Perl’s resistance to Mengele’s orders highlights the importance of moral action, not just reflective reaction. The experiences of each of these figures, while certainly located in the unique horrors of Holocaust Germany, portends lessons for today’s physicians faced with moral distress and ethical dilemma in the face of suffering, interpersonal relationships, and socio-political conflicts that increasingly test the professed ideals of medicine. In this article we briefly tell the story of each of these physicians and connect the lessons therein to contemporary medical practice.

The capacity to designate a surrogate (CDS) is not simply another kind of medical decision-making capacity (DMC). A patient with DMC can express a preference, understand information relevant to that choice, appreciate the significance of that information for their clinical condition, and reason about their choice in light of their goals and values. In contrast, a patient can possess the CDS even if they cannot appreciate their condition or reason about the relative risks and benefits of their options. Patients who lack DMC for many or most kinds of medical choices may nonetheless possess the CDS, particularly since the complex means-ends reasoning required by DMC is one of the first capacities to be lost in progressive cognitive diseases (eg, Alzheimer’s disease). That is, patients with significant cognitive decline or mental illness may still understand what a surrogate does, express a preference about a potential surrogate, and be able to provide some kind of justification for that selection. Moreover, there are many legitimate and relevant rationales for surrogate selection that are inconsistent with the reasoning criterion of DMC. Unfortunately, many patients are prevented from designating a surrogate if they are judged to lack DMC. When such patients possess the CDS, this practice is ethically wrong, legally dubious and imposes avoidable burdens on healthcare institutions.

Vaccine refusal forces us to confront tensions between many values, including scientific expertise, parental rights, children’s best interests, social responsibility, public trust, and community health. Recent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable and emerging infectious diseases have amplified these issues. The prospect of a coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine signals even more friction on the horizon. In this contentious sociopolitical landscape, it is therefore more important than ever for clinicians to identify ethically justified responses to vaccine refusal.

African American distrust of medicine has consequences for treatment seeking and healthcare behaviour. Much work has been done to examine acute events that have contributed to this phenomenon and a sophisticated bioethics discipline keeps watch on current practices by medicine. But physicians and clinicians are not the only actors in the medical arena, particularly when it comes to health beliefs and distrust of medicine. The purpose of this paper is to call attention not just to ethical shortcomings of the past, but to the structural contexts of those events and the contributions and responsibilities of popular media and academic disciplines in the production of knowledge. We argue that ignoring context and producing inaccurate work has real impacts on health and healthcare, particularly for African Americans, and thus engenders ethical obligations incumbent on disciplines traditionally recognised as purely academic

Our purpose in this article is to identify and suggest resolution for two core problematics of grounded theory. First, while grounded theory provides transparency to one part of the conceptualization process, where codes emerge directly from the data, it provides no such systematic or transparent way for gaining insight into the conceptual relationships between discovered codes. Producing a grounded theory depends not only on the definition of conceptual pieces, but the delineation of a relationship between at least two of those pieces. Second, the conceptualization process of grounded theory is done in hierarchical fashion, where individual codes emerge from the data but then are used to generate insight into more general concepts and thematic statements. But various works on grounded theory have failed to provide any systematic way of using data specific levels of scale (the codes) to gain insight into more macro levels of scale (concepts and themes). We offer fractal concept analysis as a means of resolving both of these issues. By using a logic structure generator, fractal concept analysis delineates self-similar conceptual frameworks at various levels of abstraction, yielding a method for linking concepts together within and between levels of scale encountered in the grounded theory coding and categorization process. We conclude that this fractal analytic technique can bolster the aims of grounded theory as a formalized and systematic process for generating theory from empirical data.

Background: This article reports a study that assessed the link between physician guidance and perceptions of empathy. Previous literature suggests that patients prefer medical decision making to be a collaborative process. However, no study has specifically tested how physician guidance affects the way the patient perceives his or her physician's empathy. As a period of laissez-faire autonomy appears to be drawing to a close, it will be important to understand what kinds of guidance have positive effects on the physician-patient relationship. Methods: This study used a matched-vignette design to investigate whether individuals perceive a physician who provides an opinion on the best course of action for a patient as more empathic than one who does not. Surveys were administered at local YMCAs to capture the widest demographic possible, with participants randomly assigned to one of two vignettes. Results: Findings suggest that patients may indeed view physicians who guide medical decision making as more empathic. Specifically, those participants assigned the vignette in which the physician guided the patient's decision rated that physician as more empathic, even while controlling for gender. Conclusions: Some forms of physician input into patient decision making clearly improve patients' perceptions of physicians' empathy. However, more research is needed as to what types of involvement with patient decisions promote positive perceptions of physicians and under what conditions.

We agree with Emily Walsh (2020) that the current preferences of patients with dementia should sometimes supersede those patients’ advance directives. We also agree that consensus clinical ethics guidance does a poor job of explaining the moral value of such patients’ preferences. Furthermore, Walsh correctly notes that clinicians are often averse to treating patients with dementia over their objections, and that this aversion reflects clinical wisdom that can inform revisions to clinical ethics guidance. But Walsh’s account of the moral value of the preferences of patients with dementia suffers from three major problems: (1) it does not engage the actual practices of clinical ethics; (2) it provides an inadequate account of why these patients’ preferences matter; and (3) it offers a poor explanation of clinicians’ intuitions in these cases. Her arguments engage a philosophical debate that is largely irrelevant to clinical practice and she therefore leaves pressing real-world clinical ethics questions unaddressed. After underscoring some of Walsh’s main points, we will discuss each of these shortcomings.