Shahla Siddiqui

This paper will discuss why and how social network sites ought to be used in surrogate decision making (SDM), with focus on a context like Singapore in which substituted judgment is incorporated as part of best interest assessment for SDM, as guided by the Code of Practice for making decisions for those lacking mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act (2008). Specifically, the paper will argue that the Code of Practice already supports an ethical obligation, as part of a patient-centred care approach, to look for and appraise social network site (SNS) as a source of information for best interest decision making. As an important preliminary, the paper will draw on Berg’s arguments to support the use of SNS information as a resource for SDM. It will also supplement her account for how SNS information ought to be weighed against or considered alongside other evidence of patient preference or wishes, such as advance directives and anecdotal accounts by relatives.

This was an in-depth qualitative study that looked at the reasons patients were referred to the Clinical Ethics Committee of an acute hospital in Singapore and explore how the CEC approached cases referred. Jonsen’s four topics approach was applied in the deliberative process for all cases. A comprehensive review of the case records of 28 patients referred consecutively to the CEC from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014 was conducted. Data and information was collated from the referral forms, patient medical records, and emails communicated among CEC members. A deductive approach to thematic analysis based on Jonsen’s four topics approach was used to analyze the documents. Majority of the patients were male, Chinese, and above 65 years of age. Ethical dilemmas surfaced due to differences in opinion regarding withholding of aggressive management, withdrawing treatment, and ascertaining patient’s autonomy. In most cases, the patients’ preference on end-of-life care was unknown. The main reasons for referral to the CEC were conflicts in clinical management and uncertainty about the decision-making capacity of patients. The CEC members tended to emphasize on “patient preference” more than the other quadrants in the four topics approach as they worked through each case. The Jonsen’s four topics approach lays the groundwork to frame ethical dilemmas that can be easily applied in the clinical setting and is a useful tool for the CEC’s teaching and discussion. Nonetheless, the approach only organizes ethical dilemmas and requires clinicians to apply own judgment in weighing ethical principles. Further studies can look into adapting the four topics approach to suit the local practices and context.

Advance Care Planning was introduced as a means of empowering individuals to make informed decisions regarding their health and end-of-life care. It is a way for individuals to contemplate their own personal values and to exercise autonomy. However, there is reason to believe that ACP may not be widely taken up and when adopted, may not be applied as intended. The ethical challenges facing ACP need careful study. This essay focuses on two problematic ethical aspects of ACP: 1. a strict adherence to procedural formalism, 2. an over-emphasis on individualistic autonomy, which can lead to hindrances in its implementation. These may explain both the low uptake as well as its ineffectiveness. ACP should not be a compliance exercise and implementers will need to think hard about when and how to implement ACP, given cultural and perceptual sensitivities. By discussing the concept of “narrativism” and “relational autonomy”, we provide an avenue for solving the dilemmas faced and present a scenario that is closer to the ideal of what the ACP framework hopes to achieve. This would include patient preference as well as best interest and family values. An increased uptake of ACP will be a useful health service delivery indicator, but this [End Page 53] would also entail developing a more morally mindful and just society in a broader sense.

Brain death certification can be a clinically and ethically challenging affair. Healthcare workers are expected to refer patients for brain death certification to identify potential organ donors, but family members may be ill-prepared for this turn of events. Already distraught families may not appreciate delays in brain death certification, but such delays are common because of the need to manage the patient’s altered physiological state to allow testing. Opportunities for donation are sometimes lost because of the unnecessary delay. With focus on an opt-out organ donation law, we discuss causes of delays in brain death certification, and the ethical issues faced by clinicians in using tests to certify patients. To resolve the issues, we argue for the use of supplementary confirmatory tests as part of a more protocol-driven approach to brain death certification to avoid delays. Such tests should be regarded as part of the donation process funded by the state.

Respect for autonomy is a key concept in contemporary bioethics and in ethics at the end of life in particular. An individualistic interpretation of autonomy may not incorporate the aspects of consideration that patients may have for their wider construct of personhood, which includes their love and consideration for their families. This anonymous case describes the intricacies of a patient’s decision making at the end of life, the choices she made, and how her decisions changed as her situation evolved. The tension this produced within the medical team is unpacked using a lens of compassionate care in the intensive care unit.

Objective: We hypothesized that the reasons behind this tension are complex and can be understood better by applying social psychology theory.Design: A qualitative methodology was drawn on for data collection and thematic analysis, with focus group discussions adopted for interviews with patient families and ICU physicians. Additionally, we used a social psychology theory, the reasoned action approach (RAA) framework, to understand these tensions.Setting: Two 15-bedded ICUs of an academic university–affiliated teaching hospital in Singapore.Subjects: A total of 72 physicians and family members of older ICU patients (>70 years old).Measurements and Main Results: The primary analysis revealed five areas of tension around prognostication in the ICU. These dealt with issues of divergent views, different role expectations, conflicting emotional responses, and issues of communication and trust. Further analysis helped to identify underlying factors leading to tensions and behaviors. Differences in prognostication and in expectation of outcomes between clinicians and family members were the main cause of tensions. When the RAA framework was applied, these tensions could be predicted early on and understood more clearly.Conclusions: Tensions revolve around losing control of the patient’s care, differences between hopeful expectations and clinical prognostication, perceived biases of physicians, and underlying mistrust between families and physicians.