The Hang Up

Over the past year, our ethics service has had numerous consultations involving patients who use the emergency department for regular dialysis. Sometimes, they have access to outpatient hemodialysis that they forgo; other times, they've been “fired” from this kind of outpatient facility, and so the ED is their last option. In most of these cases, we're called because the patient is disruptive once admitted to the ICU and behavior plans haven't helped. But the call from a resident this March 2020 morning was different, the patient had end-stage renal disease and often missed hemodialysis, but he wasn't disruptive. “It's just that he comes in after using cocaine, and given scarcity with the coronavirus and ICU beds….” I have come to think that this is one of the more insidious effects of the pandemic: that there will be a resurgence of the view that some patients deserve health care by virtue of their compliant behavior and that those who are nonadherent don't.     

Primum non tacere: An Ethics of Speaking Up

Many medical students are fearful of voicing their concerns about ethically troubling medical practice. Yet they must speak up if they are to meet their responsibilities to patients, colleagues, and the profession of medicine.     

Anencephalic Donors: Separate the Dead From the Dying

Proposals to use organs from anencephalic infants to meet the growing need for transplantable ogans are well-meaning but misguided. It would be unwise to amend the Uniform Determination of Death Act to classify anencephalics as “dead.” They are in the same situation as other patients (such as the permanently comatose). Likewise, amending the Anatomical Gin Act to permit organs to be removed from anencephalics would be unjust would set a bad precedent and would likely reduce overall success in this field.     

From theory to practice

As I prepare to start medical school this fall and think back on my two years as a research assistant at The Hastings Center, I'm struck by how much I've learned and yet how much remains unknown to me. After two years of lunchtime conversations, project meetings, and debates in the research assistants' office, discussing issues ranging from reproduction to end‐of‐life care has become almost a way of life. At the same time, I'm reminded of a story my mom told me about her childhood piano teacher, Miss Belser, who told her that while she could certainly learn to play all the notes in the Moonlight Sonata, she was too young to know the heartache that makes the notes become music.     

Foundation for a natural right to health care

Discussions concerning whether there is a natural right to health care may occur in various forms, resulting in policy recommendations for how to implement any such right in a given society. But health care policies may be judged by international standards including the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The rights enumerated in the UDHR are grounded in traditions of moral theory, a philosophical analysis of which is necessary in order to adjudicate the value of specific policies designed to enshrine rights such as a right to health care. We begin with an overview of the drafting of the UDHR and highlight the primary influence of natural law theory in validating the rights contained therein. We then provide an explication of natural law theory by reference to the writings of Thomas Aquinas, as well as elucidate the complementary "capabilities approach" of Martha Nussbaum. We conclude that a right to health care ought to be guaranteed by the state.     

Trust The Fragile Foundation of Contemporary Biomedical Research

It is widely assumed that informing prospective subjects about the risks and possible benefits of research not only protects their rights as autonomous decisionmakers, but also empowers them to protect their own interests. Yet interviews with patient-subjects conducted under the auspices of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments suggest this is not always the case. Patient-subjects often trust their physician to guide them through decisions on research participation. Clinicians, investigators, and IRBs must assure that such trust is not misplaced.     

From the local to the global: bioethics and the concept of culture

Cultural models of health, illness, and moral reasoning are receiving increasing attention in bioethics scholarship. Drawing upon research tools from medical and cultural anthropology, numerous researchers explore cultural variations in attitudes toward truth telling, informed consent, pain relief, and planning for end-of-life care. However, culture should not simply be equated with ethnicity. Rather, the concept of culture can serve as an heuristic device at various levels of analysis. In addition to considering how participation in particular ethnic groups and religious traditions can shape moral reasoning, bioethicists need to consider processes of socialization into professional cultures, organizational cultures, national civic culture, and transnational culture. From the local world of the community clinic or oncology unit to the transnational workings of human rights agencies, attentiveness to the concept of culture can illuminate how patients, family members, and health care providers interpret illness, healing, and moral obligations.