Ludovica De Panfilis

Objective To study physicians’ personal preferences for end-of-life practices, including life-sustaining and life-shortening practices, and the factors that influence preferences. Design A cross-sectional survey (May 2022–February 2023). Setting Eight jurisdictions: Belgium, Italy, Canada, USA (Oregon, Wisconsin, and Georgia), Australia (Victoria and Queensland). Participants Three physician types: general practitioners, palliative care physicians, and other medical specialists. Main outcome measures Percentage of physicians who preferred various end-of-life practices and provided information about influence on preferences and demographics. Results 1157 survey responses were analysed. Physicians rarely considered life-sustaining practices a (very) good option (in cancer and Alzheimer’s respectively: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 0.5% and 0.2%; mechanical ventilation, 0.8% and 0.3%; tube feeding, 3.5% and 3.8%). About half of physicians considered euthanasia a (very) good option (respectively, 54.2% and 51.5%). The proportion of physicians considering euthanasia a (very) good option ranged from 37.9% in Italy to 80.8% in Belgium (cancer scenario), and 37.4% in Georgia, USA to 67.4% in Belgium (Alzheimer’s scenario). Physicians practising in a jurisdiction with a legal option for both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide were more likely to consider euthanasia a (very) good option for both cancer (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.4) and Alzheimer’s (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6). Conclusion Physicians largely prefer to intensify alleviation of symptoms at the end of life and avoid life-sustaining techniques. In a scenario of advanced cancer or Alzheimer’s disease, over half of physicians prefer assisted dying. Considerable preference variation exists across jurisdictions, and preferences for assisted dying seem to be impacted by the legalisation of assisted dying within jurisdictions.

Research question and aim Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) aim to support healthcare professionals (HPs) and healthcare organizations to deal with the ethical issues of clinical practice. In 2020, a CEC was established in an Oncology Research Hospital in the North of Italy. This paper describes the development process and the activities performed 20 months from the CEC’s implementation, to increase knowledge about CEC’s implementation strategy. Research design We collected quantitative data related to number and characteristics of CEC activities carried out from October 2020 to June 2022 using the CEC internal database. Data were reported descriptively and compared with data from the literature to provide a complete overview of the CEC’s development and implementation process. Participants and research context The study has been conducted at the local health authority (LHA) of Reggio Emilia. It is a report of the activities provided by the CEC, where no HPs or patients were involved. Ethical Considerations The report is part of a larger study named EVAluating a Clinical Ethics Committee implementation process (EvaCEC), which has been approved by the Local Ethics Committee (AUSLRE Protocollo n° 2022/0026554 of 24/02/2022). EvaCEC is also the first author's PhD project. Findings In total, the CEC performed 7 ethics consultations (EC), published three policies related to particular ethical questions of clinical and organizational practice, provided one educational online course on ethics consultation targeting employed HPs, and promoted a specific dissemination process among the different departments of the LHA. According to our results, the CEC widely fulfilled the standard threefold set of clinical ethics support services tasks (namely, ethics consultation, ethics education, and policy development), but further investigations are needed to evaluate the CEC’s impact on clinical practice. Conclusion Our findings may increase knowledge regarding the composition, role, and tasks of a CEC in an Italian setting, informing future strategies and efforts to regulate these institutions officially.

BackgroundThis study aims to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the activities of a Bioethics Unit (BU) 5 years since its implementation (2016–2020). The BU is a research unit providing empirical research on ethical issues related to clinical practice, clinical ethics consultation, and ethical education for health care professionals (HPS).MethodsWe performed an explanatory, sequential, mixed-method, observational study, using the subsequent qualitative data to explain the initial quantitative findings. Quantitative data were collected from an internal database and analyzed by descriptive analysis. Qualitative evaluation was performed by semi-structured interviews with 18 HPs who were differently involved in the BU’s activities and analyzed by framework analysis.ResultsQuantitative results showed an extensive increment of the number of BU research projects over the years and the number of work collaborations with other units and wards. Qualitative findings revealed four main themes, concerning: 1. the reasons for contacting the BU and the type of collaboration; 2. the role of the bioethicist; 3. the impact of BU activities on HPs, in terms of developing deeper and more mature thinking; 4. the need to extend ethics support to other settings. Overall, our results showed that performing both empirical bioethics research and more traditional clinical ethics activities at the same unit would produce an impetus to increase collaboration and spread an 'ethical culture' among local HPs.ConclusionsOur findings contribute to a growing body of literature on the models of clinical ethics support services and the role of empirical research in bioethics internationally. They also prepare the ground for the implementation of a multidisciplinary Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) that aims to support the BU’s ethics consultation service within the local context.

BackgroundUnder COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations developed guidelines to deal with the ethical aspects of resources allocation. This study describes the results of an argument-based review of ethical guidelines developed at the European level. It aims to increase knowledge and awareness about the moral relevance of the outbreak, especially as regards the balance of equity and dignity in clinical practice and patient’s care. MethodAccording to the argument-based review framework, we started our research from the following two questions: what are the ethical principles adopted by the ethical guidelines produced at the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak related to resource allocation? And what are the practical consequences in terms of 'priority' of access, access criteria, management of the decision-making process and patient care?ResultsTwenty-two ethical guidelines met our inclusion criteria and the results of our analysis are organized into 4 ethical concepts and related arguments: the equity principle and emerging ethical theories; triage criteria; respecting patient’s dignity, and decision making and quality of care.ConclusionFurther studies can investigate the practical consequences of the application of the guidelines described, in terms of quality of care and health care professionals’ moral distress.

Advance care planning (ACP) is considered a pivotal aid in the decision‐making process, especially for many people living with dementia, who inevitably will lose the capacity to make decisions at the end of life. In Italy, ACP has been recently regulated by law 219/2017, leading to the investigation of how physicians deal with ACP in dementia. In order to comprehend the perception of physicians who provide care for patients with dementia regarding ACP and to describe their difficulties and needs, this study presents the results of a qualitative research study performed within a local health authority in northern Italy. Data were collected by semi‐structured interviews with 11 physicians dealing with patients with dementia and were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Four superordinate themes were identified, describing both the difficulties and challenges perceived by physicians in performing shared ACP in their daily activities. This study demonstrates that physicians experience troubles synchronizing the time of shared ACP with the more rapid development of dementia. Results also suggest that further training about communication on ACP is urgently required to ease the implementation of shared ACP. A broader involvement of institutions and other professionals is also important in spreading ACP among healthcare institutions.

This article proposes a retrospective analysis of a compassionate use, using a case study of request for Avelumab for a patient suffering from Merkel Cell Carcinoma. The study is the result of a discussion within a Provincial Ethics Committee following the finding of a high number of requests for CU program. The primary objective of the study is to illustrate the specific ethical and clinical profiles that emerge from the compassionate use program issue. The secondary goals are: a) to promote a moral reflection among physicians who require approval for the CUP and b) provide the basis for recommendations on how to request CUP. The instruments for carrying out the analysis of the case study and the discussion are as follows: Analysis of the audio-recording of the EC meeting regarding the selected Case study. In-depth discussion of topics that emerged during the meeting by means of administration of 5 semi-structured interviews with 2 doctors involved in the case and with 3 components of the EC who played a major role in the EC internal discussion. In an exploration of emerging clinical and ethical issues, four primary themes arise: 1. efficacy, safety of the treatment and patient’s quality of life; 2. clear, realistic, adequate communication; 3. right to hope; 4. simultaneous Palliative Care approach. The results of ethical analysis carried out concern two areas: 1) ethical profiles relating to the use of CUP; 2) the role of the EC concerning the compassionate use of drugs and the need to provide recommendations on how to request CUP. With the aim of implementing these conclusions, the provincial EC of Reggio Emilia chose to steer the request for drugs for compassionate use through recommendations for good clinical and ethical practice based on the following assumptions: 1) the “simultaneous care” approach must be preferred. Secondly, 2) the EC’s assessment must be part of the decision-making process that the care team conducts before proposing compassionate use to the patient.