Issues in clinical ethics consultation: an introduction

Any area that surges ahead as rapidly as this one [clinical ethics] has over the last five years is virtually certain to find that there are many problems which will need to be addressed. There will also be a need for persons working in this field (or studying it) to take some time to reflect on where it is going, as well as to examine some of the possible pitfalls -- both the obvious and the not so obvious -- which lie ahead. The series of papers in this issue of Theoretical Medicine have been written by a group of ethicists who have had a longstanding interest in the field of clinical ethics, and most of whom have spent many years working in the area. While all of the papers focus on the field of clinical ethics, they are very diverse in the topics covered. Some may be viewed as controversial by readers....     

Public consultation in ethics an experiment in representative ethics

Genome Canada has funded a research project to evaluate the usefulness of different forms of ethical analysis for assessing the moral weight of public opinion in the governance of genomics. This paper will describe a role of public consultation for ethical analysis and a contribution of ethical analysis to public consultation and the governance of genomics/biotechnology. Public consultation increases the robustness of ethical analysis with a more diverse set of moral experiences. Consultation must be carefully and respectfully designed to generate sufficiently diverse and rich accounts of moral experiences. Since dominant groups tend to define ethical or policy issues in a manner that excludes some interests or perspectives, it is important to identify the range of interests that diverse publics hold before defining the issue and scope of the discussion and the premature foreclosure of ethical dialogue. Consequently, a significant contribution of ethical dialogue strengthened by social analysis is to consider the context and non-policy use of power to govern genomics and to sustain social debate on enduring ethical issues.     

Moral distress--the role of ethics consultation in the NICU

Moral distress is a common occurrence for individuals involved in the care of critically ill infants. The ability to reason through difficult situations is often complicated by intensely emotional circumstances. Ethics consultation in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit is a useful tool for caregivers and families who face moral problems. Understanding the responsibility of caregivers and parents to act as independent moral agents is an essential element in reducing moral distress and working collaboratively to resolve moral problems.     

Responsibility rewarded: ethics, engagement, and scientific autonomy in the labyrinth of the minotaur

Dramatic changes in the stem cell ethical and research ecosystem in the last 10 years depended on active engagement among scientists, ethicists, government, and public. Tracing that story demonstrates the value of such engagement, and forecasts a successful method for meeting future challenges.     

Gonorrhea and the beginnings of clinical research ethics

Research on ocular inflammation associated with gonorrhea began in conjunction with the entry of trachoma into Europe during the Napoleonic wars. The initial questions involved the cause of the contagiousness of gonorrhea and how the contagion spreads from the genitalia to other sites. Because efforts to infect animals with gonorrheal matter were unsuccessful, all experiments were conducted on human subjects. Once these two causes of blindness were tentatively differentiated, attempts to restore vision in an eye that had been blinded by a trachomatous membrane over the cornea by instilling gonorrheal pus began to be practiced. In 1841, Joseph Piringer described his use of this method to determine infectiousness decades before the discovery of pathogenic bacteria, as well as ethical concerns about the associated endangerment of patients. Beginning in the 1880s, research focused on the identification of the gonococcus and assessment of its pathogenicity.The ethical dilemma of inducing a disease with an unpredictable outcome persisted until the 1940s, when gonorrhea could be reliably cured by penicillin.     

Community-equipoise and the ethics of randomized clinical trials

This paper critically examines a particular strategy for resolving the central ethical dilemma associated with randomized clincial trials (RCTs) -- the "community equipoise" strategy (CE). The dilemma is that RCTs appear to violate a physician's duty to choose that therapy which there is most reason to believe is in the patient's best interest, randomizing patients even once evidence begins to favor one treatment. The community equipose strategy involves the suggestion that our judgment that neither treatment is to be preferred (that there obtains a state of "equipoise") is to be assessed according to a community rather than an individual standard. Thus, though a physician may personally believe that there is some reason to prefer one treatment, patients can legitimately be randomized if there remains disagreement in the community of medical professionals. Rationales in favor of this conception include the following: (i) medical knowledge is best understood as residing in the community, (ii) the judgments of others count as evidence, and so should change one's own opinion, (iii) subjects would not be better off outside the trial, and (iv) the point of any trial is the resolution of dispute in the medical community. I critically examine these rationales and argue that they are insufficient. Amongst the problems are tensions between various of these underlying rationales, and important ambiguities in just what the CE criterion is to amount to. Finally, I argue that even if use of CE was justified, it would not justify carrying out RCTs anywhere near long enough to discharge our duty to gain reliable knowledge on which to base safe and effective medical practice. Hence, we need some different justification for carrying out RCTs.     

Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice

It is widely maintained that a clinical trial is ethical only if some form of equipoise between the treatments being compared obtains. To be in equipoise between two treatments A and B is to be cognitively indifferent between the statement 'A is strictly more effective than B' and its negation. It is natural to claim that equipoise regarding A and B is necessary for randomised assignment to treatments A and B to be beneficent and non-maleficent and is sufficient for such an assignment to be fair. Cashing this out precisely is difficult, and various forms of equipoise have been discussed which consider whose equipoise is relevant to the decision. This is to make judgement of equipoise something to be managed socially, while its prima facie significance is supposedly cognitive. Recent reconstructions of equipoise-like concepts in epistemology give clues about how to understand equipoise cognitively. In this paper I examine some of this work and discuss how successful it has been. I suggest that while this work is promising, it still has far to go, and that while equipoise remains the best theory we have of the cognitive justification for clinical trials, it is nonetheless incoherent.     

Consultation patterns and clinical correlates of consultation in a tertiary care setting

Background

Chronic diarrhoea is one of the most debilitating consequences of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa and it carries a high mortality rate. We report unexpectedly low concentrations of circulating aldosterone in 12 patients (6 men, 6 women) in the University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, who all had diarrhoea for over one month. Changes in serum electrolytes, blood pressure, Karnofsky score and serum aldosterone concentration were being monitored during a short study of responses to saline infusion (3 litres/24 h) over 72 hours.

Findings

At baseline, 9/12 (75%) of the patients were hyponatraemic, 10/11 (91%) were hypokalaemic, and 6/12 (50%) had undetectable aldosterone concentrations. Blood pressure and Karnofsky score rose and creatinine concentration fell in response to the infusion.

Conclusion

Circulating aldosterone concentrations were inappropriately low and complicate the profound electrolyte deficiencies resulting from chronic diarrhoea. Management of these deficiencies needs to be more aggressive than is currently practised and consideration should be given to a formal clinical trial of mineralocorticoid replacement in these severely ill patients. If the inappropriately low aldosterone reflects a general adrenal failure, it may explain a considerable proportion of the high mortality seen both before and after initiation of anti-retroviral therapy.