Background: As a person nears the end of their life, culture and ethnicity increasingly drive preferences and priorities for care. Understanding these preferences and priorities is fundamental to health care professionals\' goals to respect decision making and support the individual throughout this phase of life. Across Africa, several countries are in the initial stages of implementing palliative care services in their burgeoning health care systems. Moving forward, it is imperative to consider cultural similarities and differences when compared with the Western world, where the field of palliative care evolved, to create a tailored palliative care approach that is consistent with African culture. In palliative care, understanding cultural preferences and priorities requires communication between the patient and the provider and is a crucial step toward a successful implementation in Africa. A paternalistic patient-provider relationship is the current leading model in sub-Saharan Africa.1 Aim: This narrative review explores the prevalence of paternalism and explores its appropriateness and necessity in the current application of palliative care in sub-Saharan African countries. Methods: This narrative review was conducted using four databases as well as hand searching of relevant articles sourced from references of already selected articles. A total of 730 articles were identified. Fourteen articles met the inclusion/exclusion criteria set for this narrative review. Results: In sub-Saharan Africa, the leading patient-provider relationship was determined to be paternalistic. Reasons for this were language, education, cultural norms and expectations, lack of time, and benevolence. Conclusions: The implementation of palliative care often relies on communication of patient desires and goals. Consideration is needed to determine how a provider can appropriately know these factors in a paternalistic relationship.

A lack of consensus resulting in severe conflicts is often observed between the stakeholders regarding their respective roles in end-of-life (EOL) decision-making in the ICU. Since the burden of these decisions lies upon the individuals, their opinions must be known by medical, judicial, legislative, and governmental authorities. Part of the solution to the issues that arise would be to examine and understand the views of the people in different societies. Hence, in this systematic review, we assessed the attitudes of the physicians, nurses, families, and the general public toward who should be involved in decision-making and influencing factors. Toward this, we searched three electronic databases, i.e., PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health), and Embase. A matrix was developed, discussed, accepted, and used for data extraction by two independent investigators. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted by one researcher and double-checked by a second one, and any discrepancies were discussed with a third researcher. The data were analyzed descriptively and synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Thirty-three studies met our inclusion criteria. Most involved healthcare professionals and reported geographic variations in different timeframes. While paternalistic features have been observed, physicians overall showed an inclination toward collaborative decision-making. Correspondingly, the nursing staff, families, and the public are aligned toward patient and relatives\' participation, with nurses expressing their own involvement as well. Six categories of influencing factors were identified, with high-impact factors, including demographics, fear of litigation, and regulation-related ones. Findings delineate three key points. Firstly, overall stakeholders\' perspectives toward EOL decision-making in the ICU seem to be leaning toward a more collaborative decision-making direction. Secondly, to reduce conflicts and reach a consensus, multifaceted efforts are needed by both healthcare professionals and governmental/regulatory authorities. Finally, due to the multifactorial complexity of the subject, directly related to demographic and regulatory factors, these efforts should be more extensively sought at a regional level.

UNASSIGNED: Respecting autonomy is one of the guiding principles of medical and nursing ethics. Nursing home residents represent a particularly relevant target group whose autonomy can be endangered or violated.
UNASSIGNED: The study aimed to identify factors that endanger or violate the nursing home residents\' autonomy and to determine specific life situations and contexts in which these factors are located.
UNASSIGNED: A scoping review was carried out according to the Joanna Briggs Institute-method. Empirical results from journal articles from the publication period 2000-2021 were included. The articles were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 75 articles were finally included in the review. Identified factors of the endangerment and violation of autonomy are assigned to topic areas located at the level of actors, (care) relationships and structures. Factors that can violate or endanger the residents\' autonomy were found in the entire everyday life of the residents.
UNASSIGNED: The localization of the identified endangerments/violations on various actor and structural levels indicates the need for comprehensive preservation and promotion of residents\' autonomy in nursing homes.

OBJECTIVE: To review the global literature on the implementation of advance health care directives to date, and the experiences of the health care professionals who must initiate the discussions around advance care planning, as well as support patients\' ultimate decisions.
BACKGROUND: Ireland\'s Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 legalizes advance health care directives. It promotes the autonomy of the person and enables them to have treatment in accordance with their will and preferences. However, there is professional uncertainty on how to support and integrate assisted decision-making.
RESULTS: 16 studies featuring the views of health care professionals are included and evaluated using a framework of \'benefits versus challenges\'.
UNASSIGNED: Four themes clearly emerge during the review process: the concept of capacity and who decides; autonomy versus paternalism-conflict among the health care professional/patient/family caregiver triad; barriers to advance directives; and timing issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant benefits of advance health care directives exist for all parties including less stress for patients and families alike, less burden and less residual guilt for surviving relatives, and an over-arching prevention of \'crisis\' decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the central role of the nurse in empowering patients to express their wills and preferences, supporting patients\' capacity to make decisions about their own care, initiating end-of-life care discussions and advocating to have advance health care directives acknowledged. Moreover, it identifies the challenges ahead for all nurse managers in implementing this new mandate.

Nudging is the purposeful alteration of choices presented to people that aims to make them choose in predicted ways. While nudging has been used to assure high uptake and good outcome of screening programs, it has been criticized for being paternalistic, undermining free choice, and shared decision making. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to explore a) nudging strategies identified in screening, b) arguments for and against nudging; and on basis of this, to c) suggest a tentative conclusion on how to handle nudging in screening.
Literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of screening and nudging. Screening based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles.
239 references were identified and 109 were included. Several forms of nudging were identified: framed information, default bias, or authority bias. Uptake and public health outcome were the most important goals. Arguments for nudging were bounded rationality, unavoidability, and beneficence, while lack of transparency, crowding out of intrinsic values, and paternalism were arguments against it. The analysis indicates that nudging can be acceptable for screenings with (high quality) evidence for high benefit-harm ratio (beneficence), where nudging does not infringe other ethical principles, such as justice and non-maleficence. In particular, nudging should not only focus on attendance rates, but also on making people \"better choosers.\"
Four specific recommendations follow from the review and the analysis: 1) Nudging should be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. 2) The means of nudging have to be in proportion to the benefit-harm ratio. 3) Disagreement on the evidence for either benefits or harms warrants special care. 4) Assessing and assuring the intended outcome of nudging appears to be crucial, as it can be context dependent.

As medical technology has advanced, the question of medical futility has become a topic of intense debate both within the medical community and within society as a whole. However, a unanimous definition thereof is yet to be decided-some commentators are sceptical as to whether an agreement will ever be reached-and this continues to lead to difficulties, tension, and even legal action when a treating physician disagrees with a patient and/or a patient\'s family regarding care and treatment options. Although living in a pluralistic society presents one of the major reasons as to why, despite 30 years of intense discussion, no consensus has been made; the issue of medical futility will always be complex as it is, by nature, multifaceted, and numerous elements-including possible risks, evidence of the probability of benefit, the wishes of the patient (and family), professional standards, and cost-interact. Nevertheless, the global medical community has seen the development of two distinctly different approaches to medical futility: one in which the autonomy of patients is of paramount importance in the decision whether or not to pursue a treatment; and one in which beneficence and primum non nocere-first do no harm-are almost entirely the clinician\'s prerogative, and whereby he/she has a duty to refuse any treatment for which the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits for the patient. Recently, however, there has been a rejection of this dichotomous view of medical futility and the apparent \"power struggle\" between physician and patient, and a positive movement towards a more collaborative decision-making process that highlights the necessity of communication, aiming to result in the obtainment of the best possible outcome for each patient as an individual.

In this article we will review the benefits of a system built on partnership of physicians and their patients, highlight some of the factors which impede this transition, and propose ways to address these factors. Also, we are going to analyze the educational environment in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia concerning ethics and communication skills. Personal responsibility of patients for their health should be reflected in their joint involvement in health decisions with their physicians. Patients, insecure about their individual competence surrounding their health decisions, tend to shy away from responsibility, whereas physicians, pressured by the responsibilities of the profession, do not always show sensitivity to all of the patient\'s concerns. They often treat illnesses instead of patients. A more open and collaborative relationship between the patient and the physician through shared decision making would be a better alternative. In the end, the patient ultimately decides whether a health intervention was satisfactory in fulfilling his or her specific needs. Transition from a paternalistic to a mutual relationship between doctors and patients has already begun. In an era of intense information sharing, shared decision making is a sensitive, ethical, legal, and political concept which needs empathic doctors with well-developed communication skills to integrate their clinical knowledge with patient-centered care.
CONCLUSIONS: Transition from paternalistic to partner relation between physicians and patients is moving slowly ahead in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Educational environment is improving but needs intense efforts to develop further.

暂无摘要。

This paper offers a non-paternalistic justification for prospective research review as providing a credible social assurance that the institutions of scientific advancement respect and affirm the moral equality of all community members and as creating a \"market\" in which stakeholders working to advance diverse ends also advance the common good.

The main trends of the bioethics development in Belarus have been analyzed on the basis of the materials collected by the Ethics Documentation Center (ISEU, Minsk, Belarus). A critical review of the most important publications in the field since 2000 suggests that development of bioethics in Belarus has occurred in two parallel directions distantly connected to each other: a theoretical direction and a practical one. Despite there are objective and subjective reasons for introducing bioethics in Belarus as an institutionally-organized system based on liberal values such as individual rights and freedom, a range of essential problems could be identified. Non-equivalent regulation of ethical issues in health care and other fields of biomedical research has been emphasized, as well as the problem of unclear hierarchical relationships among institutions dealing with various aspects of bioethics in the country and low ethical and educational level of the social and professional groups involved in further expansion of bioethical knowledge. The contextual aspects of the development of bioethics in the country such as the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, the prevalence of the authoritarian social morality and traditionally paternalistic nature of the relations between physicians and their patients are discussed.