BACKGROUND: A nanny state imposes restrictions on people\'s liberty and freedom of action in order to advance their interest and welfare. The extent to which this is desirable, or even ethically acceptable, is debated in the literature. This paper formulates and tests the following hypothesis: the more of a nanny a state has been in the past, the more likely it is that the incumbent government will respond to a new, unknown threat with interventions of a paternalist nature, irrespective of other factors that might contribute to shaping government\'s response. This hypothesis is then taken to the data using the first wave of COVID-19 as an empirical test.
METHODS: Data are collected from secondary sources for a sample of 99 countries. Nanny statism is measured by the number of paternalist laws and regulations adopted by a country in the past. The response to COVID is proxied by the time of adoption of control and containment measures and their stringency. The public health outcome is measured by the COVID-19 death toll at the end of June 2020. These variables, plus several controls, are then used to estimate a set of linear and probit regressions and a proportional hazard model of the timing of adoption of control and containment measures.
RESULTS: An increase in nanny statism by 0.1 (on a scale from 0 to 10) on average increases the probability of adoption of control and containment measures by 0.077 (i.e. 7.7 percentage points). The central tenement of the hypothesis is therefore consistent with the empirical evidence. The linear and probit regressions also show that there is no evidence of a significant effect of nanny statism on the stringency of the measures adopted. Irrespective of stringency, however, early adoption of control and containment measures is found to reduce the death toll of COVID-19 in the first half of 2020: an increase in nanny statism by 0.1 reduces the COVID death toll by approximately 7%.
CONCLUSIONS: A tradition of nanny statism potentially leads to a more timely and effective public policy response to a new, unknown crisis. Further tests of the hypothesis should look at the relationship between nanny statism and public health outcomes from natural disasters.

UNASSIGNED: We explored how family caregivers perceive decision-making regarding the care of nursing home residents.
UNASSIGNED: This qualitative study used Flemming\'s Gadamerian-based research method. In person semi-structured interviews about decision-making concerning residents\' care were conducted with 13 family members (nine women, four men) of residents of three Norwegian nursing homes.
UNASSIGNED: The following themes emerged: Excessive focus on autonomy threatens resident wellbeing and safety. Resident wellbeing is the caregiver\'s responsibility. Resident wellbeing serves as a guiding principle.
UNASSIGNED: The family members of residents and the nursing home caregivers disagreed about the significance of upholding resident autonomy to respect residents\' dignity. The family members held that not all instances where residents refused care reflect autonomy situations as care refusal often does not reflect the resident\'s true values and standards but rather, stems from barriers that render necessary care actions difficult. In situations where residents refuse essential care or when the refusal does not align with the residents second-order values, the family members suggested that caregivers strive to understand the causes of refusal and seek non-coercive ways to navigate it. Hence, the family members seemed to endorse the use of soft paternalism in nursing homes to safeguard residents\' wellbeing and dignity.

The shape and function of ethical imperatives may vary if the context is an interaction between strangers, or those who are well acquainted. This idea, taken up from Stephen Toulmin\'s distinction between an \"ethics of strangers\" and an \"ethics of intimacy\", can be applied to encounters in healthcare. There are situations where healthcare personnel (HCP) know their patients (corresponding to an \"ethics of intimacy\") and situations where HCP do not know their patients (corresponding to \"an ethics of strangers\"). Does it make a difference for normative imperatives that follow from central concepts and principles in medical ethics whether HCP know their patients or not? In our view, this question has not yet been answered satisfactorily. Once we have clarified what is meant by \"knowing the patient\", we will show that the distinction is particularly relevant with regard to some thorny questions of autonomy in healthcare (e.g., regarding advance directives or paternalism in the name of autonomy), whereas the differences with regard to imperatives following from the principles of justice and beneficence seem to be smaller. We provide a detailed argument for why knowing the patient is ethically valuable in encounters in healthcare. Consequently, healthcare systems should provide fertile ground for HCP to get to know their patients, and structures that foster therapeutic continuity. For this to succeed, a number of questions still need to be clarified, which is an important task for medical ethics.

OBJECTIVE: Many individuals who are eligible for lung cancer screening have comorbid conditions complicating their shared decision-making conversations with physicians. The goal of our study was to better understand how primary care physicians (PCPs) factor comorbidities into their evaluation of the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and into their shared decision-making conversations with patients.
METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews by videoconference with 15 PCPs to assess the extent of shared decision-making practices and explore their understanding of the intersection of comorbidities and lung cancer screening, and how that understanding informed their clinical approach to this population.
RESULTS: We identified 3 themes. The first theme was whether to discuss or not to discuss lung cancer screening. PCPs described taking additional steps for individuals with complex comorbidities to decide whether to initiate this discussion and used subjective clinical judgment to decide whether the conversation would be productive and beneficial. PCPs made mental assessments that factored in the patient\'s health, life expectancy, quality of life, and access to support systems. The second theme was that shared decision making is not a simple discussion. When PCPs did initiate discussions about lung cancer screening, although some believed they could provide objective information, others struggled with personal biases. The third theme was that ultimately, the decision to be screened was up to the patient. Patients had the final say, even if their decision was discordant with the PCP\'s advice.
CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making conversations about lung cancer screening differed substantially from the standard for patients with complex comorbidities. Future research should include efforts to characterize the risks and benefits of LCS in patients with comorbidities to inform guidelines and clinical application.

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.

BACKGROUND: According to a recently published study, approximately half of those who currently smoke in Norway have little or no desire to quit despite a hostile regulatory and socio-cultural climate for smoking. On this background, we discuss some challenges that regulators will face in a further tightening of structural measures to curb smoking.
METHODS: Central to our discussion is the research literature concerned with the concept of state-paternalism in tobacco control-the line between an ethically justified interference with the freedom of those who smoke and an exaggerated infringement disproportionate to the same people\'s right to live as they choose. In countries with an already advanced infrastructure for tobacco control, this dilemma might become quite intrusive for regulators. We ask that if people, who smoke are aware of and have accepted the risks, are willing to pay the price, smoke exclusively in designated areas, and make decisions uninfluenced by persuasive messages from manufacturers-is a further tightening of anti-smoking measures still legitimate? Strengthening of the infrastructure for tobacco control can be seen as a \"help\" to people who-due to some sort of \"decision failure\"-continue to smoke against their own will. However, for those who want to continue smoking for reasons that for them appear rational, such measures may appear unwanted, punitive, and coercive. Is it within the rights of regulators to ignore peoples\' self-determination for the sake of their own good? We problematize the \"help\" argument and discuss the authorities\' right to elevate the zero-vision of smoking as universally applicable while at the same time setting up barriers to switching to alternative nicotine products with reduced risk.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that a further intensification of smoking control in countries that already have a well-developed policy in this area requires that regulators start to exploit the opportunity that lies in the ongoing diversification of the recreational nicotine market.

During the last decades, shared decision making (SDM) has become a very popular model for the physician-patient relationship. SDM can refer to a process (making a decision in a shared way) and a product (making a shared decision). In the literature, by far most attention is devoted to the process. In this paper, I investigate the product, wondering what is involved by a medical decision being shared. I argue that the degree to which a decision to implement a medical alternative is shared should be determined by taking into account six considerations: (i) how the physician and the patient rank that alternative, (ii) the individual preference scores the physician and the patient (would) assign to that alternative, (iii) the similarity of the preference scores, (iv) the similarity of the rankings, (v) the total concession size, and (vi) the similarity of the concession sizes. I explain why shared medical decisions are valuable, and sketch implications of the analysis for the physician-patient relationship.

All contemporary frameworks of mental capacity stipulate that we must begin from the presumption that an adult has capacity. This presumption is crucial, as it manifests respect for autonomy and guards against prejudice and paternalism on the part of the evaluator.Given its ubiquity, we might presume that we all understand the presumption\'s meaning and application in the same way. Evidence demonstrates that this is not the case and that this has led to harm in vulnerable persons. There is thus strong reason to question our presumptions about the presumption of capacity.We distinguish between two main ways of understanding and applying the presumption of capacity, and advocate for the one that we argue mitigates risk of harm. Our proposed interpretation offers many advantages in that it is consonant with actual practice of capacity evaluations, precludes confused and abusive avoidance of needed evaluations, and preserves the respect for autonomy motivating the presumption in the first place.

BACKGROUND: Whether women should be able to decide on mode of birth in healthcare settings has been a topic of debate in the last few decades. In the context of a marked increase in global caesarean section rates, a central dilemma is whether pregnant women should be able to request this procedure without medical indication. Since 2015, Law 25,929 of Humanised Birth is in place in Argentina. This study aims at understanding the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women, and labour companions regarding decision-making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, central concepts of power theory are used.
METHODS: This study uses a qualitative design. Twenty-six semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers were conducted in five maternity wards in different regions of Argentina. Participants were purposively selected using heterogeneity sampling and included obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to inductively develop themes and categories.
RESULTS: Three themes were developed: (1) Healthcare providers reconceptualize decision-making processes of mode of birth to make women\'s voices matter; (2) Healthcare providers feel powerless against women\'s request to choose mode of birth; (3) Healthcare providers struggle to redirect women\'s decision regarding mode of birth. An overarching theme was built to explain the power relations between healthcare providers, women and labour companions: Healthcare providers\' loss of beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights the complexity of the healthcare provider-woman interaction in a context in which women are, in practice, allowed to choose mode of birth. Even though healthcare providers claim to welcome women being an active part of the decision-making processes, they feel powerless when women make autonomous decisions regarding mode of birth. They perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in the eyes of patients and consider fruitful communication on risks and benefits of each mode of birth to not always be possible. At the same time, providers perform an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place.
In the last few decades, there has been a debate on whether women should be able to choose if they haver a vaginal birth or a caesarean section. This debate has been framed by the fact that an increasing number of caesarean sections are being performed. Since 2015, Argentina has a Law of Humanised Birth. We conducted a study to understand the power relations between healthcare providers, pregnant women and labour companions in decision making on mode of birth in this new legal context. To do so, we used central concepts of power theory. We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers in five maternity wards of Argentina. The interviewees were obstetrician/gynaecologists (heads of department, specialists working in 24-h shifts, and residents) and midwives where available. We used thematic analysis to build themes from the data. We discovered that healthcare providers perceive themselves to be losing beneficial power in decision-making on mode of birth. Even though they claim to want women to make autonomous decisions, they feel frustrated when this happens. They also perceive it to be more difficult to communicate with patients regarding the risks and benefits of vaginal birth and caesarean section. At the same time, providers carry out an increasing number of CSs without medical indication when it is convenient for them, which suggests that paternalistic practices are still in place.

Objectives: The study describes the attitudes of Polish nursing personnel towards Jehovah\'s Witnesses\' (JWs\') refusal to receive blood and blood products. Methods: We developed an online survey assessing nurses\' knowledge and attitudes towards JWs\' refusal of blood transfusion in a life-threatening condition. It also examined nurses\' attitudes towards ethical and legal issues associated with JWs\' refusal of blood transfusions. These questions were explored using a sample of 202 Polish nurses. Results: Nurses\' knowledge of JWs\' stance towards blood transfusions is inadequate and they tended to be ill-disposed towards JWs\' refusal of blood transfusions. Although most nurses respected adult JW patients\' autonomy and supported their right to refuse blood, in the case of JW children they are guided by paternalism. Nurses\' attitudes were affected by whether they had children, whether they declared themselves religious, their level of education and prior experience with patients who had refused a blood transfusion. Conclusion: Since most nurses felt unprepared to care for JW patients, this study reveals an urgent need to train nurses in transcultural nursing and increase nurses\' cultural competencies, and that this should be incorporated into medical curricula .