Jordan Potter

In their article, Pope and colleagues examine the ethical, legal, and practical complexities associated with the use of advance directives (ADs) to pursue voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED) in the context of patients with advanced dementia. The authors detail the shortcomings of current VSED ADs, and they review a new VSED AD that they argue addresses these shortcomings and provides a better solution to the complexities associated with implementing VSED ADs. While the authors make a robust argument for the overall need and supportability of VSED ADs, this commentary highlights a problem that still persists even with the new VSED AD, specifically the absence of a robust ethical justification for continuing to honor the VSED AD even when the advanced dementia patient is requesting to eat or drink in the context of distress and suffering. Without this robust ethical justification, moral distress of family and caregivers is likely to occur, which could jeopardize the larger implementation of the VSED AD. Rather than pursue this more extreme measure without robust ethical justification, the commentary argues that the authors’ alternative proposal of minimal comfort feeding is the more practical and ethical strategy that best balances the patient’s longer- and shorter-term interests.

The authors describe their Ethics Program’s transition from utilizing ethics committees to instead implementing a three-initiative structure consisting of Ethics Grand Rounds, an Ethics Liaison Network, and an Ethics Advisory Group. They first outline the history of ethics committees. Then, they discuss the history of their Ethics Program and the challenges that ethics committees posed. Next, they describe their approach to developing new initiatives for non-ethicist healthcare professionals to engage in ethics work and what these initiatives specifically entail. They then describe how they worked to secure buy-in for dissolving their ethics committees and, based on pre- and post-implementation surveys, how this transition has been received by former ethics committee members. Finally, the authors reflect on what has been gained and lost through these changes and offer insights and recommendations for other ethics programs thinking about discontinuing their own ethics committees in favor of more innovative models.

With the increasing professionalization of clinical ethics, some hospitals and health systems utilize both ethics committees and professional clinical ethicists to address their ethics needs. Drawing upon historical critiques of ethics committees and their own experiences, the authors argue that, in ethics programs with one or more professional clinical ethicists, ethics committees should be dissolved when they fail to meet minimum standards of effectiveness. The authors outline several criteria for assessing effectiveness, describe the benefits of a model that places primary responsibility for ethics work with professional clinical ethicists—the PCE-primary model, and offer suggestions for alternative ethics program structures that empower healthcare professionals to contribute to ethics work in ways more tailored to their strengths and skills while minimizing the shortcomings of ethics committees.

With the increasing professionalization of clinical ethics, some hospitals and health systems utilize both ethics committees and professional clinical ethicists to address their ethics needs. Drawing upon historical critiques of ethics committees and their own experiences, the authors argue that, in ethics programs with one or more professional clinical ethicists, ethics committees should be dissolved when they fail to meet minimum standards of effectiveness. The authors outline several criteria for assessing effectiveness, describe the benefits of a model that places primary responsibility for ethics work with professional clinical ethicists—the PCE-primary model, and offer suggestions for alternative ethics program structures that empower healthcare professionals to contribute to ethics work in ways more tailored to their strengths and skills while minimizing the shortcomings of ethics committees.

Demonstrating value is an ongoing process and requirement for institutional survival for ethics programs. Although our ethics program has significantly increased our ethics consultation volume and maintains a robust database that tracks ethics consultation data, these data regarding ethics consultations alone do not accurately represent the program’s overall activities and value to the institution. The roles and responsibilities of clinical ethicists extend beyond clinical ethics consultation, and there are many other ways that clinical ethicists contribute and add value to their institutions. This article describes our ethics program’s early efforts to systematically track ethics program activities outside of ethics consultations as a way to demonstrate additional value to the institution that goes beyond ethics consultation. By systematically tracking activities such as internal ethics education sessions, conference presentations, publications, grants, committee/policy work, and other activities, our ethics program has been able to gather substantial quantitative data that highlight our program’s numerous activities and outreach, both within and outside the institution, that provide additional value to the institution beyond our ethical consultation activities.

Propelling Clinical Ethics Forward: A Working Unconference was held from 28-29 April 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia. The event, the third installment in an ongoing series of Clinical Ethics Unconferences, brought together 77 individuals from 40 institutions to exchange innovative practices and collaborate to address issues facing the field of clinical ethics. In this article the authors highlight the five major themes that emerged from the 2022 Unconference, including: (1) tackling new and old problems in clinical ethics practice; (2) evolving models of clinical ethics structure and delivery; (3) defining the scope of clinical ethics work; (4) addressing racism, ableism, and underrepresentation in clinical ethics work; and (5) collecting and utilizing data effectively. The authors also reflect on what was learned from the first three Unconferences and offer suggestions for future Unconferences.

Each year, many young professionals forego advanced education in the traditional doctoral programs of medicine, law, and philosophy in favor of pursuing a PhD or professional doctorate in bioethics or healthcare ethics that is offered by several major institutes of higher education across the United States. These graduates often leverage their degrees into careers within the broader field of bioethics. As such, they represent a growing percentage of professional bioethicists in both academia and healthcare nationwide. Given the significant role that doctoral bioethics programs play in the training of future professional bioethicists, it is imperative that programs conferring bioethics degrees are attuned to the knowledge and skills students will need as they transition to professional positions, especially where this training substantially differs from more traditional doctoral degree tracks. Yet, even given this need, there is nothing in the professional literature regarding doctoral bioethics graduates’ perspectives or the overall efficacy of a bioethics doctorate as compared to more traditional doctoral degree tracks for future professional bioethicists. This paper then gives the perspective of five recent doctoral bioethics graduates on the utility of a bioethics doctorate and areas where the doctorate prepared or underprepared them in their roles as early-career professional bioethicists.

This paper is a clinical ethics case study which sheds light on several important dilemmas which arise in providing care to patients from cultures with non-individualistic conceptions of autonomy. Medical professionals face a difficult challenge in determining how to respond when families of patients ask that patients not be informed of bad medical news. These requests are often made for cultural reasons, by families seeking to protect patients. In these cases, the right that patients have to their own medical information in order to make autonomous decisions is in tension with the possibility that patients could hold values that require limiting their autonomy with regard to medical information disclosure, often based on the idea that family should take on difficult decision-making as an act of care. We describe one such case, of an 83-year old Russian woman whose husband requested she not be informed of a new cancer diagnosis. The appropriate response to this request was to ask the patient about her values separately, without disclosing any medical information until her values were clear. This patient indicated she wanted the care team to uphold her husband’s request. This response makes the importance of determining a patient’s values before moving forward with disclosure clear: she would not have wanted to be informed of her cancer. We describe our conversation strategy, which allowed value exploration without disclosure and highlighted that the obligation to respect a patient’s autonomy sometimes includes an obligation to allow a patient to choose to limit their own autonomy. This case also highlights that this kind of conversation prioritizes the patient’s values rather than the family’s or care team’s, centering patients in the way that is ethically appropriate.

In the United States, the field of bioethics has expanded over the last two decades. Several institutions offer graduate-level training at both the masters and doctoral level. However, a lack of published literature on the outcomes of doctoral training in bioethics from the perspective of graduates exists. Researchers conducted an online survey of doctoral students who had finished all doctoral requirements but their dissertation, as well as doctoral graduates, of four US-based institutions to ascertain their perspectives on a number of items regarding their doctoral training and their perception of how that training prepared them for their current role in the workforce. Responses from 34 participants were assessed. Respondents had positive overall views on the utility of a bioethics doctorate and the educational training they received in their respective programs. A number of areas for improvement were identified, including better structured clinical ethics training, greater opportunities for research and publishing, and having the ability to teach during their doctoral program, as well as formal pedagogy training. Greater exposure to clinical ethics consultation during the doctoral program was associated with feeling fully prepared as a clinical ethics consultant. This is the first study to assess the perspectives of bioethics doctoral graduates and ABD students regarding the utility of a bioethics doctorate. Per the perspectives of graduates and ABD students, bioethics doctorates are important and effective to train professional bioethicists. We recommend that a few key changes to these programs’ curricula can further bolster their effectiveness.

In the debate surrounding the morality and legality of the practices of physician-assisted death and euthanasia, a common logical argument regularly employed against these practices is the “slippery slope argument.” One formulation of this argument claims that acceptance of physician-assisted death will eventually lead down a “slippery slope” into acceptance of active euthanasia, including its voluntary, non-voluntary, and/or involuntary forms, through psychological and social processes that warp a society’s values and moral perspective of a practice over an extended period of time. This formulation is known as the psychological slippery slope argument. This paper analyzes the psychological slippery slope argument as it is applied to the practice of physician-assisted death, and utilizing recent empirical evidence from various nations around the world that practice physician-assisted death and/or euthanasia, the paper argues that employing the psychological slippery slope argument against physician-assisted death is logically fallacious, this kind of slippery slope is unfounded in practice, and thus the psychological slippery slope argument is insufficient on its own to justify continued legal prohibition of physician-assisted death.

While the practice of organ donation after cardiac death has long been trending upwards in acceptance and use, it is still a highly controversial and practically inefficient method of organ procurement. One policy that has recently been proposed to try and alleviate some of the ethical and practical concerns with organ donation after cardiac death is the practice of imminent death organ donation. This type of live organ donation comes in patients at the end of their life who have decided to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, but still want to ensure that their organs are donated and not wasted, which isn't always the case with organ donation after cardiac death. This paper then gives some ethical and practical reflections and recommendations regarding the potential implementation of this controversial practice into regular transplant practice and policy.

In Catholic moral theology, the principle of double effect has been an effective normative tool for centuries, and it can be used to determine the ethicality of actions that contain both good and evil consequences. The principle of double effect is especially useful in end-of-life care, because many end-of-life treatment options inherently have both good and evil conse­quences. The principle of double effect can be used to make both practical and moral distinctions between the acts of euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, palliative sedation, and the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, which can be classified as either unjustified acts of killing or jus­tifiable acts of allowing to die.