Search

Movies can serve valuable didactic purposes teaching clinical ethics to medical students. However, using film sequences as means to develop critical thinking is not a straightforward task. There is a significant gap in the literature regarding how to analyse the ethical content embedded in these clips systematically, in a way that facilitates the students' transition from anecdotal reflections to abstract thinking. This article offers a pedagogical proposal to approach the ethical analysis of film sequences in a systematic fashion. This structured stepwise method encourages students to identify the main ethical problem of a selected scene and to reflect on the theoretical principles involved, emphasizing the application of these norms and values in a contextually situated analysis. We believe this method in film studies both reinforces the students' comprehension of the theoretical framework of an ethical topic, and casts light on its pertinence and limitations under the circumstances of the scene, thus proving a constructive tool to strengthen the bridge between the theoretical teaching of clinical ethics and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Healthcare providers have to make ethically complex clinical decisions which may be a source of stress. Researchers have recently introduced Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications to assist in clinical ethical decision-making. However, the use of such tools is controversial. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the reasons given in the academic literature for and against their use. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Philpapers.org and Google Scholar were searched for all relevant publications. The resulting set of publications was title and abstract screened according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 44 papers whose full texts were analysed using the Kuckartz method of qualitative text analysis. Results Artificial Intelligence might increase patient autonomy by improving the accuracy of predictions and allowing patients to receive their preferred treatment. It is thought to increase beneficence by providing reliable information, thereby, supporting surrogate decision-making. Some authors fear that reducing ethical decision-making to statistical correlations may limit autonomy. Others argue that AI may not be able to replicate the process of ethical deliberation because it lacks human characteristics. Concerns have been raised about issues of justice, as AI may replicate existing biases in the decision-making process. Conclusions The prospective benefits of using AI in clinical ethical decision-making are manifold, but its development and use should be undertaken carefully to avoid ethical pitfalls. Several issues that are central to the discussion of Clinical Decision Support Systems, such as justice, explicability or human–machine interaction, have been neglected in the debate on AI for clinical ethics so far. Trial registration This review is registered at Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/wvcs9 ).

Background: Healthcare providers have to make ethically complex clinical decisions which may be a source of stress. Researchers have recently introduced Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based applications to assist in clinical ethical decision-making. However, the use of such tools is controversial. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the reasons given in the academic literature for and against their use. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Philpapers.org and Google Scholar were searched for all relevant publications. The resulting set of publications was title and abstract screened according to defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 44 papers whose full texts were analysed using the Kuckartz method of qualitative text analysis. Results: Artificial Intelligence might increase patient autonomy by improving the accuracy of predictions and allowing patients to receive their preferred treatment. It is thought to increase beneficence by providing reliable information, thereby, supporting surrogate decision-making. Some authors fear that reducing ethical decision-making to statistical correlations may limit autonomy. Others argue that AI may not be able to replicate the process of ethical deliberation because it lacks human characteristics. Concerns have been raised about issues of justice, as AI may replicate existing biases in the decision-making process. Conclusions: The prospective benefits of using AI in clinical ethical decision-making are manifold, but its development and use should be undertaken carefully to avoid ethical pitfalls. Several issues that are central to the discussion of Clinical Decision Support Systems, such as justice, explicability or human–machine interaction, have been neglected in the debate on AI for clinical ethics so far. Trial registration: This review is registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/wvcs9). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical Ethics Consultations (CECs) are used by healthcare systems to offer healthcare practitioners a structured level of support to approach ethical questions. The objective of this study was to detail the elements of surveyed CECs and offer guidance in the approach to future ethics consultations at a regional healthcare system., Methods: This cohort study has a qualitative and quantitative retrospective approach, surveying ethics consultations through the dates of 4/27/22 to 4/26/24. A documentary sheet was created, and information was entered via online data-gathering forms. The cases are from a range of specialties within a regional healthcare system servicing Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Dakota., Results: 103 CECs were performed within the study period across the regional healthcare system. Consultations were identified through retrospective review of the internal CEC database, and patient information was collected through the medical record. Decision-making was often performed by a substitute decision-maker (N = 54), occurring in 70.1% of cases with known decision makers. CECs were documented in an ethics-specific note in the patient medical record in 37 of 82 (45.1%) documented patient cases. It was common for physicians to mention the ethics consultation in their patient notes, occuring in 51 of 82 (62.2%) of documented patient cases. Age was recorded in 92.0% (N = 91) of unique patient cases; the median age was 62 years. Ethical questions concerning end-of-life care were the most common cause for consultation (N = 35, 34%), and CECs were most commonly requested in general medicine or hospitalist departments (N = 38, 45.2%). Most consultations resulted in resolution at time of initial consultation with the ethics call team., Conclusions: Recommendations for increased frequency and timing of policy review are given based on the results of the data presented. Using interpretation of the CECs in this study, we offer recommendations towards the use and documentation of ethics consultations in the era of open notes, open the door towards areas of future research, and ultimately promote use of CECs for more favorable patient outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In this paper, I leverage the pragmatist tradition in philosophy, the collective wisdom of scholarship in clinical ethics consultation, and earlier attempts to apply pragmatism in clinical ethics to develop a new vision of clinical ethics practice called New Clinical Pragmatism. It argues that clinical ethics methodology, from the New Clinical Pragmatist's perspective, amounts to the recommendation that consultants should customize a methodological approach, drawing on the various available methods, depending on the demands of the specific case, and should avoid attempts to identify a 'true' methodology but to the incoherence and inevitable failure of those attempts. I argue that pragmatism's emphasis on practical wisdom and experimentation allow the New Clinical Pragmatist to do this while avoiding irrationality in choosing methods. I discuss how the New Clinical Pragmatist gives a unique, constructive perspective on key aspects of clinical ethics consultation such as the choice of common morality vs. internal morality of medicine approaches, process standards, bioethics mediation, and narrative ethics, and suggest how New Clinical Pragmatism's relaxed approach to choice of methodology encourages consultants to balance attention to the particulars of the case with knowledge of what the many insightful scholars of clinical ethics methodology have found useful in the past. I also argue that New Clinical Pragmatism is consistent with efforts to professionalize clinical ethics consultation., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Copyright of ProCare is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Globally, healthcare providers (HCPs), hospital administrators, patients and their caretakers are increasingly confronted with complex moral, social, cultural, ethical, and legal dilemmas during clinical care. In high-income countries (HICs), formal and informal clinical ethics support services (CESSs) have been used to resolve bioethical conflicts among HCPs, patients, and their families. There is limited evidence about mechanisms used to resolve these issues as well as experiences and perspectives of the stakeholders that utilize them in most African countries including Uganda., Methods: This phenomenological qualitative study utilized in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to collect data from Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) staff, patients, and caretakers who were purposively selected. Data was analyzed deductively and inductively yielding themes and sub-themes that were used to develop a codebook., Results: The study revealed there was no formal committee or mechanism dedicated to resolving ethical dilemmas at the UCI. Instead, ethical dilemmas were addressed in six forums: individual consultations, tumor board meetings, morbidity and mortality meetings (MMMs), core management meetings, rewards and sanctions committee meetings, and clinical departmental meetings. Participants expressed apprehension regarding the efficacy of these fora due to their non-ethics related agendas as well as members lacking training in medical ethics and the necessary experience to effectively resolve ethical dilemmas., Conclusion: The fora employed at the UCI to address ethical dilemmas were implicit, involving decisions made through various structures without the guidance of personnel well-versed in medical or clinical ethics. There was a strong recommendation from participants to establish a multidisciplinary clinical ethics committee comprising members who are trained, skilled, and experienced in medical and clinical ethics., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: FM reports grants or contracts from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and College of Intensive Care Medicine, all paid to their institution; royalties or licences from The McMonty Hood (licenced to Medihood); patents for The McMonty Hood (owned by Medihood) and ReResp (owned by the University of Melbourne); and being the co-lead of the Sustainability Working Party for the College of Intensive Care Medicine. CR reports no competing interests.

Competing Interests: None.

AbstractBackground: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are frequently exposed to ethical problems in patient care that can affect the quality of care. Understanding risk factors for ethical problems may help practitioners to address these problems at an early stage. This study aims to provide an overview of ethical risk factors in patient care. Risk factors known from the literature and those found in clinical ethics consultation (CEC) cases are reviewed., Methods: A scoping review of ethical risk factors in patient care and a CEC case series were conducted, analyzing the documentation (consultation reports, feedback forms, electronic medical records) of 204 CECs from 2012 to 2020 at a somatic and a psychiatric university hospital in Basel, Switzerland., Results: Ninety-nine ethical risk factors were identified in nine articles, related to four risk areas: patient (41), family (12), healthcare team (29), and system (17). Eighty-seven of these risk factors were documented at least once in the CEC case series. The most prevalent risk factors in the consultations studied were patient vulnerability (100%), missing or unclear hospital ethics policy (97.1%), shift work (83.3%), lack of understanding between patient and HCP (73.5%), poor communication (66.2%), disagreement between patient and HCP about care (58.8%), and multiple care teams (53.4%). The prevalence differed significantly by medical specialty., Conclusions: There are highly prevalent ethical risk factors at all levels of clinical care that may be used to prevent ethical problems. Further empirical research is needed to analyze risk ratios and to develop specific risk profiles for different medical specialties.

Healthcare practitioners have access to a range of ethical guidance. However, the normative role of this guidance in ethical decision-making is underexplored. This paper considers two ways that healthcare practitioners could approach ethics guidance. We first outline the idea of deference to ethics guidance, showing how an attitude of deference raises three key problems: moral value; moral understanding; and moral error. Drawing on philosophical literature, we then advocate an alternative framing of ethics guidance as a form of moral testimony by colleagues and suggest that a more promising attitude to ethics guidance is to approach it in the spirit of 'critical engagement' rather than deference., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

AbstractEmpirical studies of pediatric clinical ethics cases are scant in the biomedical and bioethics literature. In this study, more than 100 detailed records of clinical ethics consultations spanning from 2000 to 2020 at a moderately sized U.S. Mid-Atlantic children's hospital were abstracted and analyzed. Findings of the analysis were generally consistent with other studies in pediatric clinical ethics, with additional insight into aspects of moral distress associated with cases, family engagement with consultations, and other characteristics of interest also documented. Over the 20-year time frame, ethics consults were completed on average twice a year, with a detectable upward trend. Consultations were requested across the spectrum of services and units within the hospital, with critical care environments represented most frequently and genetic and neurological conditions being the most common primary diagnoses. Ethical analysis most commonly related to questions around the principles of autonomy and beneficence.

AbstractA long-standing tenet of healthcare clinical ethics consultation has involved the neutrality of the ethicist. However, recent pressing societal issues have challenged this viewpoint. Perhaps now more than ever before, ethicists are being called upon to take up roles in public health, policy, and other community-oriented endeavors. In this article, I first review the concept of professional advocacy and contrast this conceptualization with the role of patient advocate , utilizing the profession of nursing as an exemplar. Then, I explore the status of advocacy in clinical ethics and how this conversation intersects with the existing professional obligations of the bioethicist, arguing that the goals of ethics consultation and ethical obligations of the clinical ethicist are compatible with the role of professional advocate. Finally, I explore potential barriers to professional advocacy and offer suggestions for a path forward.

Leading paradigms of clinical ethics consultation closely follow a biomedical model of care. In this paper, we present a theoretical reflection on the underlying biomedical model of disease, how it shaped clinical practices and patterns of ethical deliberation within these practices, and the repercussions it has on clinical ethics consultations for patients with chronic illness. We contend that this model, despite its important contribution to capturing the ethical issues of day-to-day clinical ethics deliberation, might not be sufficient for patients presenting with chronic illnesses and navigating as "lay experts" of their medical condition(s) through the health care system. Not fully considering the sources of personal knowledge and expertise may lead to epistemic injustice within an ethical deliberation logic narrowly relying on a biomedical model of disease. In caring "for" and collaboratively "with" this patient population, we answer the threat of epistemic injustice with epistemic modesty and humility. We will propose ideas about how clinical ethics could contribute to an expansion of the biomedical model of care, so that important aspects of chronic illness experience would flow into clinical-ethical decision-making., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Clinical ethics consultants (CECs) work in complex environments ripe with multiple types of expectations. Significantly, some are due to the perspectives of professional colleagues and the patients and families with whom CECs consult and concern how CECs can, do, or should function, thus adding to the moral complexity faced by CECs in those particular circumstances. We outline six such common expectations: Ethics Police, Ethics Equalizer, Ethics Superhero, Ethics Expediter, Ethics Healer or Ameliorator, and, finally, Ethics Expert. Framed by examples of requests for ethics consultation that illustrate each kind, along with brief descriptions, we argue that while these expectations ought to be resisted for clear and practical reasons, they also create opportunities for CECs to articulate, educate, and ultimately be responsible to the professional demands of clinical ethics work. Recognizing, acknowledging, and at times resisting those expectations thus become key activities and responsibilities in the performance of ethics consultation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

Background: At the beginning of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, many non-Covid healthcare services were suspended. In April 2020, the Department of Health in England mandated that non-Covid services should resume, alongside the continuing pandemic response. This 'resetting' of healthcare services created a unique context in which it became critical to consider how ethical considerations did (and should) underpin decisions about integrating infection control measures into routine healthcare practices. We draw on data collected as part of the 'NHS Reset Ethics' project, which explored the everyday ethical challenges of resetting England's NHS maternity and paediatrics services during the pandemic., Methods: Healthcare professionals and members of the public participated in interviews and focus group discussions. The qualitative methods are reported in detail elsewhere. The focus of this article is our use of Frith's symbiotic empirical ethics methodology to work from our empirical findings towards the normative suggestion that clinical ethics should explicitly attend to the importance of relationships in clinical practice. This methodology uses a five-step approach to refine and develop ethical theory based on a naturalist account of ethics that sees practice and theory as symbiotically related., Results: The Reset project data showed that changed working practices caused ethical challenges for healthcare professionals, and that infection prevention and control measures represented harmful barriers to the experience of receiving and offering care. For healthcare professionals, offering care as part of a relational interaction was an ethically important dimension of healthcare delivery., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that foregrounding the importance of relationships across a hospital community will better promote the ethically important multi-directional expression of caring between healthcare professionals, patients, and their families. We offer two suggestions for making progress towards such a relational approach. First, that there is a change of emphasis in clinical ethics practice to explicitly acknowledge the importance of the relationships (including with their healthcare team) within which the patient is held. Second, that organisational decision-making should take into account the moral significance afforded to caring relationships by healthcare professionals, and the role such relationships can play in the negotiation of ethical challenges., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Confidentiality is one of the central preconditions for clinical ethics support (CES). CES cases which generate moral questions for CES staff concerning (breaching) confidentiality of what has been discussed during CES can cause moral challenges. Currently, there seems to be no clear policy or guidance regarding how CES staff can or should deal with these moral challenges related to (not) breaching confidentiality within CES. Moral case deliberation is a specific kind of CES., Method: Based on experiences and research into MCD facilitators' needs for ethics support in this regard, we jointly developed an ethics support tool for MCD facilitators: the Confidentiality Compass. This paper describes the iterative developmental process, including our theoretical viewpoints and reflections on characteristics of CES tools in general., Results: The content and goals of the ethics support tool, which contains four elements, is described. Part A is about providing information on the concept of confidentiality in MCD, part B is a moral compass with reflective questions, part C focuses on courses of action for careful handling of moral challenges related to confidentiality. Part D contains general lessons, best practices and tips for dealing with confidentiality in future cases., Conclusions: This paper concludes with providing some lessons-learned related to developing ethics support tools and some reflections on issues of quality and normativity of ethics support tools., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Healthcare organizations aim to provide excellent, patient-centred care. Many departments within a hospital excel in achieving this goal, but clinical ethics service providers would benefit from becoming more patient-centred. This article considers how ethics services can add a patient-facing component to their strategic direction and work portfolio. Through a case example, suggestions to guide ethics service providers in expanding their duties and responsibilities are provided, including consultation with families and education sessions. This reframing would include clarifying the role of ethics within a healthcare organization, making services more accessible to patients, families and the community, as well as engaging with other disciplines to provide well-rounded patient care. While the work currently being done by clinical ethics services is important and ought to be continued, ethics service providers should strive to achieve the goal of improving patient experiences and directly contribute to the excellent care being provided., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

This paper is a clinical ethics case study which sheds light on several important dilemmas which arise in providing care to patients from cultures with non-individualistic conceptions of autonomy. Medical professionals face a difficult challenge in determining how to respond when families of patients ask that patients not be informed of bad medical news. These requests are often made for cultural reasons, by families seeking to protect patients. In these cases, the right that patients have to their own medical information in order to make autonomous decisions is in tension with the possibility that patients could hold values that require limiting their autonomy with regard to medical information disclosure, often based on the idea that family should take on difficult decision-making as an act of care. We describe one such case, of an 83-year old Russian woman whose husband requested she not be informed of a new cancer diagnosis. The appropriate response to this request was to ask the patient about her values separately, without disclosing any medical information until her values were clear. This patient indicated she wanted the care team to uphold her husband's request. This response makes the importance of determining a patient's values before moving forward with disclosure clear: she would not have wanted to be informed of her cancer. We describe our conversation strategy, which allowed value exploration without disclosure and highlighted that the obligation to respect a patient's autonomy sometimes includes an obligation to allow a patient to choose to limit their own autonomy. This case also highlights that this kind of conversation prioritizes the patient's values rather than the family's or care team's, centering patients in the way that is ethically appropriate., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

How should clinical ethicists be trained? Scholars have stated that clinical ethics fellowships create well-trained, competent ethicists. While this appears intuitive, few features of fellowship programs have been publicly discussed, let alone debated. In this paper, we examine how fellowships can foster effective mentoring relationships. These relationships provide the foundation for the fellow's transition from novice to competent professional. In this essay, we begin by discussing our pedagogical commitments. Next, we describe the structures our program has created to assist our fellows in becoming competent ethicists. We then outline the kinds of knowledge, skills, and professional attributes mentors should possess. Following this, we focus on the knowledge, skills, and professional attributes that fellows develop as they co-create effective mentoring relationships. We will not prescribe a single approach to fellowship training; instead, our perspective will, we hope, become a catalyst for further conversation on training and mentoring clinical ethics fellows., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

This article discusses an approach to translational bioethics (TB) that is concerned with the adaptation-or 'translation'-of concepts, theories and methods from bioethics to practical contexts, in order to support 'non-bioethicists', such as researchers and healthcare practitioners, in dealing with their ethical issues themselves. Specifically, it goes into the participatory development of clinical ethics support (CES) instruments that respond to the needs and wishes of healthcare practitioners and that are tailored to the specific care contexts in which they are to be used. The theoretical underpinnings of this participatory approach to TB are found in hermeneutic ethics and pragmatism. As an example, the development of CURA, a low-threshold CES instrument for healthcare professionals in palliative care, is discussed. From this example, it becomes clear that TB is a two-way street. Practice may be improved by means of CES that is effectively tailored to specific end users and care contexts. The other way around, ethical theory may be enriched by means of the insights gained from engaging with practice in developing CES in a process of co-creation. TB is also a two-way street in the sense that it requires collaboration and commitment of both bioethicists and practitioners, who engage in a process of mutual learning. However, substantial challenges remain. For instance, is there a limit to the extent to which a method of moral reasoning can be adapted in order to meet the constraints of a given healthcare setting? Who is to decide, the bioethicist or the practitioners?, (© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Numerous ethical issues are raised in cancer treatment and research. Informed consent is challenging due to complex treatment modalities and prognostic uncertainty. Busy oncology clinics limit the ability of oncologists to spend time reinforcing patient understanding and facilitating end-of-life planning. Despite these issues and the ethics consultations they generate, clinical ethicists receive little if any focused education about cancer and its treatment. As the field of clinical ethics develops standards for training, we argue that a basic knowledge of cancer should be included and offer an example of what cancer ethics training components might look like. We further suggest some specific steps to increase collaboration between clinical ethicists and oncology providers in the outpatient setting to facilitate informed consent and proactively identify ethical issues., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

The scope of ethics in health research transcends its legal framework and the regulations established in Resolution 8430 of 1993. These norms represent a fundamental tool to determine the minimum protection standards for research subjects, and, therefore, they should be known, applied properly, and reflect upon by all researchers in the field. Here I present and discuss from an analytical point of view the regulations that guide research in health. In this framework, health is understood as a multidimensional process, and research in health as a multidisciplinary exercise involving basic, clinical and public health research, collective health, and other related sciences. The main analytical categories are related to the principles and actors involved in research (regulatory authorities, ethical committees, and special or vulnerable subjects and populations), and to professional ethics codes, in addition to informed consents and data management. Despite the contribution of this legislation to the qualification of health research, my conclusion is that the national legislation in ethics for health research requires updating regarding technological and scientific developments, as well as specifications from the multiple types of health studies.

Background: Increasing social pluralism adds to the already existing variety of heterogeneous moral perspectives on good care, health, and quality of life. Pluralism in social identities is also connected to health and care disparities for minoritized patient (i.e. care receiver) populations, and to specific diversity-related moral challenges of healthcare professionals and organizations that aim to deliver diversity-responsive care in an inclusive work environment. Clinical ethics support (CES) services and instruments may help with adequately responding to these diversity-related moral challenges. However, although various CES instruments exist to support healthcare professionals with dealing well with morally challenging situations in healthcare, current tools do not address challenges specifically related to moral pluralism and intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues. This article describes the content and developmental process of a novel CES instrument called the Diversity Compass. This instrument was designed with and for healthcare professionals to dialogically address and reflect on moral challenges related to intersectional aspects of diversity and social justice issues that they experience in daily practice., Methods: We used a participatory development design to develop the Diversity Compass at a large long-term care organization in a major city in the Netherlands. Over a period of thirteen months, we conducted seven focus groups with healthcare professionals and peer-experts, carried out five expert interviews, and facilitated four meetings with a community of practice consisting of various healthcare professionals who developed and tested preliminary versions of the instrument throughout three cycles of iterative co-creation., Results: The Diversity Compass is a practical, dialogical CES instrument that is designed as a small booklet and includes an eight-step deliberation method, as well as a guideline with seven recommendations to support professionals with engaging in dialogue when they are confronted with diversity-related moral challenges. The seven recommendations are key components in working toward creating an inclusive and safe space for dialogue to occur., Conclusions: The Diversity Compass seeks to support healthcare professionals and organizations in their efforts to facilitate awareness, moral learning and joint reflection on moral challenges related to diversity and social justice issues. It is the first dialogical CES instrument that specifically acknowledges the role of social location in shaping moral perspectives or experiences with systemic injustices. However, to make healthcare more just, an instrument like the Diversity Compass is not enough on its own. In addition to the Diversity Compass, a systemic and structural approach to social justice issues in healthcare organizations is needed in order to foster a more inclusive, safe and diversity-responsive care and work environment in health care organizations., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "decision-making for better patient care that integrates current evidence, and clinical expertise with patients' preferences, values and circumstances." It is important to distinguish research evidence from EBM, which is comprehensive decision-making that takes into account the diversity and individuality of clinical situations while respecting evidence as a general theory. Clinical practice guidelines are "a document that evaluates the total body of evidence through systematic review and presents recommendations that are considered optimal, taking into account the balance of benefits and harms, in order to support decision-making on important health-related issues by healthcare users and providers," and is useful in the practice of EBM. Shared decision making (SDM), which has been attracting attention in recent years, is "a process in which the patient and the health care provider, through dialogue, decide on a treatment plan that is acceptable to the patient, based on the patient's own preferences and values, research evidence, and clinical expertise" and must be understood in relation to the above definition of EBM and from the perspective of clinical ethics.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from those who have received clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services as a healthcare provider, patient, family member, or patient advocate. Three commentaries on these narratives are also included, authored by experts and scholars in bioethics, healthcare ethics consultation and certification, narrative medicine, and policy. The goal of this symposium is to call attention to the experiences of people who have received clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services as a healthcare provider, patient, family member, or patient advocate.

This symposium collection of twelve narratives from individuals who experienced clinical ethics consultations provides perspectives from a group that has not been adequately explored in the bioethics literature. The authors represent a variety of stakeholders who received ethics consultations: healthcare providers and family members. This commentary will focus on three themes addressed in the different narrative accounts: the reasons for requesting an ethics consultation; the expectations of the narrators from the consultation; and the conclusions the authors drew from their experience of the ethics consultation.

This commentary reflects on twelve stories of participants in clinical ethics consultations from the perspective of family members, some of whom are ethics consultants, and healthcare professionals. Together they reveal expectations of ethics consultations and suggest descriptions of the service. Some common themes emerge, including the role of the clinical ethics consultant in navigating complex situations, assuring all stake-holder voices are heard, attending to moral distress, addressing issues that seem beyond medical practice, and being accessible. They are almost uniformly positive about the experience, with criticism primarily about lack of access to the service.

Background: Little is known about the frequency of conflict between clinicians and families at the time of pediatric clinical ethics consultation (CEC) and what factors are associated with the presence of conflict., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single, tertiary urban US pediatric hospital that included all hospitalized patients between January 2008 and December 2019 who received CEC. Utilizing the hospital's CEC database that requires documentation of the presence of conflict by the consultant at the time of CEC, we determined the frequency and types of perceived conflict between families and clinicians. We also assessed the bivariable association between conflict and patient age, patient- or family-reported race/ethnicity, language for care, insurance status, clinical setting, and consultant involvement., Results: Perceived conflict between clinicians and families was present in 44% (91/209) of CEC. We observed a higher occurrence of clinician-family conflict within certain consult topics than others, in particular, informed consent/parental permission (69%), cultural considerations (67%), benefit/harm assessment (58%), and limitation of life-sustaining treatment (58%). We found no other significant associations between the presence of perceived conflict and patient sociodemographic factors or CEC factors., Conclusions: Conflict between healthcare teams and families appears common in CEC, particularly with certain consult topics. Further study is needed to better understand conflict types, causes of conflicts, management and mediation strategies, and outcomes.