Search

The article presents a criticism by John Keown of the Marty report on euthanasia in Europe. The report contains several arguments in favour of legalisation of euthanasia. The first argument focuses on the gap between practice and law. The second argument is that as long as euthanasia is legally forbidden, patient are forced to continue living in unbearable pain and suffering. In the critique of the Marty report, Keown concludes that both arguments are invalid.

Background: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs., Aims: This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders' views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom., Method: Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process., Results: Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals' confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns., Conclusions: Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.

Fostering research integrity (RI) increasingly focuses on normative guidance and supportive measures within institutions. To be successful, the implementation of support should be informed by stakeholders' experiences of RI support. This study aims to explore experiences of RI support in Dutch, Spanish and Croatian universities. In total, 59 stakeholders (Netherlands n = 25, Spain n = 17, Croatia n = 17) participated in 16 focus groups in three European countries. Global themes on RI support experiences were identified by thematic analysis. Themes identified were: 'RI governance and institutional implementation', 'RI roles and structures', 'RI education and supervision', and 'Infrastructure, technology and tools supporting daily practice'. Experiences of support differed between countries in relation to: the efforts to translate norms into practice; the extent to which RI oversight was a responsibility of RE structures, or separate RI structures; and the availability of support close to research practice, such as training, responsible supervision, and adequate tools and infrastructure. The study reinforces the importance of a whole institutional approach to RI, embedded within local jurisdictions, rules, and practices. A whole institutional approach puts the emphasis of responsibility on institutions rather than individual researchers. When such an approach is lacking, some stakeholders look for intervention by authorities, such as funders, outside of the university., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds., Methods: The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach., Results: Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise)., Conclusions: Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

Background: Clinical ethics support, in particular Moral Case Deliberation, aims to support health care providers to manage ethically difficult situations. However, there is a lack of evaluation instruments regarding outcomes of clinical ethics support in general and regarding Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in particular. There also is a lack of clarity and consensuses regarding which MCD outcomes are beneficial. In addition, MCD outcomes might be context-sensitive. Against this background, there is a need for a standardised but flexible outcome evaluation instrument. The aim of this study was to develop a multi-contextual evaluation instrument measuring health care providers' experiences and perceived importance of outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation., Methods: A multi-item instrument for assessing outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) was constructed through an iterative process, founded on a literature review and modified through a multistep review by ethicists and health care providers. The instrument measures perceived importance of outcomes before and after MCD, as well as experienced outcomes during MCD and in daily work. A purposeful sample of 86 European participants contributed to a Delphi panel and content validity testing. The Delphi panel (n = 13), consisting of ethicists and ethics researchers, participated in three Delphi-rounds. Health care providers (n = 73) participated in the content validity testing through 'think-aloud' interviews and a method using Content Validity Index., Results: The development process resulted in the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD), which consists of two sections, one to be completed before a participant's first MCD and the other after completing multiple MCDs. The instrument contains a few open-ended questions and 26 specific items with a corresponding rating/response scale representing various MCD outcomes. The items were categorised into the following six domains: Enhanced emotional support, Enhanced collaboration, Improved moral reflexivity, Improved moral attitude, Improvement on organizational level and Concrete results., Conclusions: A tentative instrument has been developed that seems to cover main outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation. The next step will be to test the Euro-MCD in a field study.

Purpose: In many European countries, initiatives have emerged to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric institutions. To study the effects of these initiatives at a national and international level, consensus on definitions of coercive measures, assessment methods and calculation procedures of these coercive measures are required. The aim of this article is to identify problems in defining and recording coercive measures. The study contributes to the development of consistent comparable measurements definitions and provides recommendations for meaningful data-analyses illustrating the relevance of the proposed framework., Methods: Relevant literature was reviewed to identify various definitions and calculation modalities used to measure coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care. Figures on the coercive measures and epidemiological ratios were calculated in a standardized way. To illustrate how research in clinical practice on coercive measures can be conducted, data from a large multicenter study on seclusion patterns in the Netherlands were used., Results: Twelve Dutch mental health institutes serving a population of 6.57 million inhabitants provided their comprehensive coercion measure data sets. In total 37 hospitals and 227 wards containing 6812 beds were included in the study. Overall seclusion and restraint data in a sample of 31,594 admissions in 20,934 patients were analyzed. Considerable variation in ward and patient characteristics was identified in this study. The chance to be exposed to seclusion per capita inhabitants of the institute's catchment areas varied between 0.31 and 1.6 per 100.000. Between mental health institutions, the duration in seclusion hours per 1000 inpatient hours varied from less than 1 up to 18h. The number of seclusion incidents per 1000 admissions varied between 79 up to 745. The mean duration of seclusion incidents of nearly 184h may be seen as high in an international perspective., Conclusion: Coercive measures can be reliably assessed in a standardized and comparable way under the condition of using clear joint definitions. Methodological consensus between researchers and mental health professionals on these definitions is necessary to allow comparisons of seclusion and restraint rates. The study contributes to the development of international standards on gathering coercion related data and the consistent calculation of relevant outcome parameters., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The use of seclusion in psychiatric practice is a contentious issue in the Netherlands as well as other countries in and outside Europe. The aim of this study is to describe Dutch seclusion data and compare these with data on other countries, derived from the literature. An extensive search revealed only 11 articles containing seclusion rates of regions or whole countries either in Europe, Australia or the United States. Dutch seclusion rates were calculated from a governmental database and from a database covering twelve General Psychiatric Hospitals in the Netherlands. According to the hospitals database, on average one in four hospitalized patients experienced a seclusion episode. The mean duration according to the governmental database is a staggering 16 days. Both numbers seem much higher than comparable numbers in other countries. However, different definitions, inconsistent methods of registration, different methods of data collection and an inconsistent expression of the seclusion use in rates limit comparisons of the rates found in the reviewed studies with the data gathered in the current study. Suggestions are made to improve data collection, to enable better comparisons.