BACKGROUND: The rising frequency of live kidney donations is accompanied by growing ethical concerns as to donor autonomy, the comprehensiveness of disclosure, and donors\' understanding of long-term consequences.
OBJECTIVE: To explore donors\' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed among Israeli live kidney donors who had donated a kidney in two hospitals that belonged to the Ministry of Health\'s Transplantation Center one year after the donation, from December 2018 to December 2020. Data collection was conducted online and through face-to-face interviews with the donors in their native language (Hebrew or Arabic).
RESULTS: Overall, 91 live kidney donors aged 18-49 years were enrolled. Of those, 65.9% were males, and 54.9% were academic donors. Among the live kidney donors, 59.3% reported that the motivation behind the donation was a first-degree family member vs. 35.2% altruistic and 5.5% commercial. Only 13.2% reported that the provided disclosure adequately explained the possible consequences of living with a single kidney. Approximately 20% of the participants reported that the disclosure included information regarding their risk of developing ESRD, hypertension, and proteinuria. The donors reported a low mean of the index score that indicates a low follow-up by the physician after the donation (mean = 1.16, SD = 0.37). The mean GFR level was significantly lower in the post-donation period one year following a kidney donation (117.8 mL/min/1.73 m2) compared with the pre-donation period (84.0 mL/min/1.73 m2), p < 0.001.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings display that donors\' satisfaction with the ethical competence of multi-professional nephrology teams regarding the disclosure of donation consequences to live kidney donors is low. This study indicates that donors are at an increased risk of worsening kidney functions (creatinine and GFR), and BMI. Our findings underscore the imperative to advise donors that their condition may worsen over time and can result in complications; thus, they should be monitored during short and long-term follow-up periods. This study was not registered.

暂无摘要。

The ethical implications of medical schools or any of their academic departments accepting large corporate donations, mainly from pharmaceutical companies, have been long debated. Although such contributions are common in other graduate institutions, medical schools must be convinced about potential conflicts of interest and public opinion. We re-explore the benefits these kinds of gifts would afford for improved educational and research resources against the ethical dilemmas this kind of donation would present and concerns about public perception and actual conflict of interest. Using the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and distributive justice, we discuss the physicians\' obligations and conceivable patient backlash that may ensue. Ultimately, we recognize the necessity for financial resources to support academic missions but contend that health care facilities and medical education must be equipped while ensuring a complete lack of bias in sponsorship.

The medical sub-specialty of Oncology presents diverse ethical dilemmas, often challenging cancer healthcare workers with difficult-to-handle clinical scenarios that are tough from a personal and professional perspective. Making decisions on patient care in various circumstances is a defining obligation of an oncologist and those duty-based judgments entail more than just selecting the best treatment or solution. Ethics is an essential and inseparable aspect of clinical medicine and the oncologists as well as the allied health care workers are ethically committed to helping the patient, avoiding or minimizing harm, and respecting the patient\'s values and choices. This review provides an overview of ethics and clinical ethics and the four main ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are stated and explained. At times there are frequently contradictions between ethical principles in patient care scenarios, especially between beneficence and autonomy. In addition, truth-telling, professionalism, empathy, and cultural competence; which are recently considered important in cancer care, are also addressed from an Indian perspective.

Medical ethics is relevant to the clinical practice of allergy and immunology regardless of the type of patient, disease state, or practice setting. When engaging in clinical care, performing research, or enacting policies on the accessibility and distribution of healthcare resources, physicians regularly make and justify decisions using the fundamental principles of medical ethics. Thus, knowledge of these principles is paramount for allergists/immunologists. To date, there has been a shortage of medical ethics research in allergy and immunology. This review describes this scarcity, highlights publication trends over time, and advocates for additional support for research and training in medical ethics with a focus on topics germane to the practice of allergy and immunology.

暂无摘要。

In the age of increasing transparency, dermatologists may encounter requests from patients to alter or withhold key medical information from their electronic medical records. Per the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, patients have the right to view their medical record and request amendments; however, the physician is the final decision maker on what information should be included in the chart. It is integral that medically necessary information is included in the chart in accordance with the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence. Withholding medically pertinent history may cause harm to the patient. Navigating such challenging situations while maintaining transparency requires a thorough understanding of the patient\'s dilemma. This contribution provides a framework by applying multiple ethical principles and will empower dermatologists to navigate such requests.

UNASSIGNED: Male sterilization, or vasectomy, is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy with less than a 2% risk of complications. Despite the high efficacy, low risk, low cost, and gender equity benefits of vasectomy, just 2% of women reported that they and their partners relied on vasectomy as their contraceptive method globally in 2019. Health care providers can be both a facilitator and a barrier in men\'s health generally, and may be in vasectomy provision as well. This study sought to describe the decision-making rationales of experienced vasectomy providers when evaluating patient candidacy in complex cases.
UNASSIGNED: Fifteen vasectomy providers belonging to the global Vasectomy Network google group from seven countries participated in online interviews using a semi-structured in-depth interview guide. Providers were asked about their vasectomy training, their reasons for vasectomy provision, challenging cases they have faced, and approaches used to manage challenging cases. Vignettes were used to further elicit decision-making rationale. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA20.
UNASSIGNED: Provider decision-making was predicated on ensuring patients were well-informed, able to consent, and certain about their choice to have a vasectomy. Once those foundational conditions were met, providers filtered patient characteristics through their training, laws and policies, sociocultural norms, experience, and peer influence to produce a cost-benefit breakdown. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, providers determined whether to weigh autonomy or non-maleficence more heavily when determining vasectomy patient candidacy.
UNASSIGNED: Despite clinical best practices that promote prioritizing patient autonomy over non-maleficence, some providers continued to weigh non-maleficence over autonomy in vasectomy patient candidacy evaluations. Non-maleficence was particularly prioritized in cases providers deemed to be at higher risk of regret. The findings of this study suggest vasectomy provider training should emphasize evidence-based best practices in shared decision-making and patient-centered care to facilitate vasectomy provision that honors patient autonomy and rights.

The widespread application of QR code technology is best represented by the health codes used in China\'s pandemic prevention and control. This technology has enhanced the country\'s ability to manage the pandemic by achieving higher efficiency and accuracy. Unfortunately, a certain segment of the older population has encountered difficulties in adapting and maintaining their daily activities. This indicates the limitations of QR code technology in achieving social isolation. This article argues that for a more comprehensive pandemic prevention and control policy system to be established, managing the implementation of this very technology should be done in a more humane fashion, i.e. under the guidance of three moral principles: benevolence, justice, and non-maleficence. By doing so, implementation of QR code technology is done in a way that is not only conducive to COVID-19 prevention and control but also mitigate marginalization of the older people. In the post-pandemic era, the socialization of digital technology will accelerate. Therefore, in the field of public health, we should direct attention not only to the fair distribution of resources but also to the issue of identity that arises due to digital divide.

The British Medical Association and some Royal Colleges have recently changed their stance on physician-assisted suicide from \'opposed\' to forms of \'neutral\'. The Royal College of Anaesthetists will poll members soon on whether to follow suit. Elsewhere neutrality amongst professional bodies has preceded legalisation of physician-assisted suicide. We examine the arguments relevant to the anaesthesia community and its potential impact in the UK.