Paul Cummins

That Jehovah’s Witnesses may refuse lifesaving blood transfusions is a morally accepted feature of contemporary medical practice. The principle of respect for autonomy supports this, and there is seldom reason to interfere with this choice because it rarely harms another individual. Advances in surgical technique have made it possible for transplant surgeons to perform bloodless organ transplant, enabling Jehovah’s Witnesses to benefit from this treatment. When the transplant organ is a directed donation from a family member or friend, no ethical dilemma arises. However, when a Jehovah’s Witness cannot identify a living donor and wishes to be listed for organ transplant, the transplant team may face an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, it wishes to provide care to the patient that is compatible with her or his preferences. On the other hand, the team may wonder if it is fair to other patients who need an organ and will accept blood transfusion to include the Jehovah’s Witness patient on a waiting list for a donated organ. If the Jehovah’s Witness patient is listed and receives an organ, then a patient who also needs an organ, and who is willing to accept all care to optimize the success of the transplant, may be denied an organ.To frame the ethical dilemma outlined above we present an anonymized case of a Jehovah’s Witness woman in urgent need of a kidney, who was referred to one of the authors’ institution’s transplant center. We review the evolution of the Jehovah’s Witness position on blood transfusion and the medical community’s efforts to provide care that accommodates this religious commitment. If Witnesses are to be denied transplant in the name of justice, there must be an ethically sound reason. We identify two rationales in the literature: (1) this allocation is unacceptable because it will cost lives; (2) resources should be allocated to patients who comply with the standard of care. We argue that neither apply to this dilemma. We also emphasize the importance of examining the data on outcomes of transplant with and without transfusion. Our interpretation of the published data on transplant without transfusion is that the outcomes are similar. We conclude that, in the absence of data that resources are risked, it is not ethical to refuse to include a Jehovah’s Witness patient on a waiting list for an organ. Finally, we reflect on the heterogeneity in transplant institutes’ polices for accepting Jehovah’s Witness patients.

The aim of this paper is to analyze an Intensive Care Unit case that required ethics consultation at a University Hospital in Northern Italy. After the case was resolved, a retrospective ethical analysis was performed by four clinical ethicists who work in different healthcare contexts. Each ethicist used a different method to analyze the case; the four general approaches provide insight into how these ethicists conduct ethics consultations at their respective hospitals. Concluding remarks examine the similarities and differences among the various approaches and offer a reflection concerning the possibility of a shared resolution to the case. The authors’ efforts to come to a tentative consensus may serve as an example for professionals working in medical contexts that reflect an increasing pluralism of values. This article aims to respond to some of these concerns by illustrating how different methods in clinical ethics would be used when considering a real case. The goal is not to establish the best model on a theoretical level, but to learn from actual practice in order to see if there are common elements in the different methods, and to validate their pertinence to clinical ethics consultation.

From February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to closures of educational institutions to reduce the spread of infectious disease. This forced the U.S. education system into a massive experiment with online education. Despite conducting online bioethics education for nearly twenty years, our bioethics program, a joint endeavor of Clarkson University and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, was not immune to this disruption because our curriculum features intensive, one-week onsite courses. Even in the face of historic disruptions, it is vital to ensure minimal interruptions to teaching and assessing students to provide effective education. This paper reviews the steps we took to successfully convert the onsite components of our curriculum to a synchronous online format, and it focuses on how we preserved instruction and assessment of practical skills that comprise these courses’ core. It also explains how we fostered interactive classroom environments.

This article attempts to motivate a reorientation of ethical analysis of conscientious objection by physicians. First, it presents an illustrative case from a hospital emergency department for context. Then, it criticizes the standard pro- and anti-CO arguments. It proposes that the fault in standard approaches is to focus on the ethics of the physician’s behavior, and a better way forward on this issue is to ask how the party against whom the physician exercises the CO ought to respond. It connects this question with recent trends in physician employment models, which suggest that CO may become a potential source of conflict in the future. The article then develops a relational account of CO that extends James Childress’ insights about the nature of CO in “Appeals to Conscience”. This relational account characterizes CO as a two-place relation between conscientious objector and expectant party, in which the conscientious objector makes a request of the expectant party, which has implications that will be welcome and unwelcome for both the pro- and anti-CO camps. Finally, the paper applies this relational account of CO to the case when the physician is an employee. This application demonstrates that it is highly context dependent whether or not an employer should accede to the CO requests of physician–employees.

This article attempts to motivate a reorientation of ethical analysis of conscientious objection by physicians. First, it presents an illustrative case from a hospital emergency department for context. Then, it criticizes the standard pro- and anti-CO arguments. It proposes that the fault in standard approaches is to focus on the ethics of the physician’s behavior, and a better way forward on this issue is to ask how the party against whom the physician exercises the CO ought to respond. It connects this question with recent trends in physician employment models, which suggest that CO may become a potential source of conflict in the future. The article then develops a relational account of CO that extends James Childress’ insights about the nature of CO in “Appeals to Conscience”. This relational account characterizes CO as a two-place relation between conscientious objector and expectant party, in which the conscientious objector makes a request of the expectant party, which has implications that will be welcome and unwelcome for both the pro- and anti-CO camps. Finally, the paper applies this relational account of CO to the case when the physician is an employee. This application demonstrates that it is highly context dependent whether or not an employer should accede to the CO requests of physician–employees.

This article attempts to motivate a reorientation of ethical analysis of conscientious objection by physicians. First, it presents an illustrative case from a hospital emergency department for context. Then, it criticizes the standard pro- and anti-CO arguments. It proposes that the fault in standard approaches is to focus on the ethics of the physician’s behavior, and a better way forward on this issue is to ask how the party against whom the physician exercises the CO ought to respond. It connects this question with recent trends in physician employment models, which suggest that CO may become a potential source of conflict in the future. The article then develops a relational account of CO that extends James Childress’ insights about the nature of CO in “Appeals to Conscience”. This relational account characterizes CO as a two-place relation between conscientious objector and expectant party, in which the conscientious objector makes a request of the expectant party, which has implications that will be welcome and unwelcome for both the pro- and anti-CO camps. Finally, the paper applies this relational account of CO to the case when the physician is an employee. This application demonstrates that it is highly context dependent whether or not an employer should accede to the CO requests of physician–employees.