case study of medical ethics

• In the News
• Impact Videos and Stories
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Policies, Disclosures and Reports

Explore Our Resources

Search for case studies, audio interviews, videos, and more.

Search for:

Clear Filters

Filter by Type

• All Categories
• Case Studies
• Medical Ethics and Policy Guidance
• Shared Decision Making and Advance Care Planning

Filter by Category

• Ethical Theory and Principles (23)
• Informed Consent (6)
• Medical Ethics (38)
• Resource Allocation (10)
• Patient/Physician Relationship (43)
• Pediatrics (3)
• Public and Population Health (71)
• Religion and Morality (14)
• Advance Care Planning (42)
• End of Life Ethics (81)
• Biotechnologies and Genomics (1)
• Procreation and Reproduction (6)
• Research Ethics (17)

Case Study – ECMO and Ethics

Case Study – Moral Culpability for Respecting Patients’ Autonomy

Case Study – Decisional Capacity of the Patient’s Surrogate

Case Study – A Multidisciplinary Healthcare Team Disagrees

Case Study – Whose Decision?

Case Study –Too little, too late… almost

Case Study – Trying to Honor Johnny’s Wishes

Case Study – “God will restore his leg. The doctors will see.” Patient Nonadherence.

Case Study – Moral Dimensions of Medical Negligence

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Med Princ Pract
• v.30(1); 2021 Feb

Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice

An overview of ethics and clinical ethics is presented in this review. The 4 main ethical principles, that is beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, are defined and explained. Informed consent, truth-telling, and confidentiality spring from the principle of autonomy, and each of them is discussed. In patient care situations, not infrequently, there are conflicts between ethical principles (especially between beneficence and autonomy). A four-pronged systematic approach to ethical problem-solving and several illustrative cases of conflicts are presented. Comments following the cases highlight the ethical principles involved and clarify the resolution of these conflicts. A model for patient care, with caring as its central element, that integrates ethical aspects (intertwined with professionalism) with clinical and technical expertise desired of a physician is illustrated.

Highlights of the Study

• Main principles of ethics, that is beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, are discussed.
• Autonomy is the basis for informed consent, truth-telling, and confidentiality.
• A model to resolve conflicts when ethical principles collide is presented.
• Cases that highlight ethical issues and their resolution are presented.
• A patient care model that integrates ethics, professionalism, and cognitive and technical expertise is shown.

Introduction

A defining responsibility of a practicing physician is to make decisions on patient care in different settings. These decisions involve more than selecting the appropriate treatment or intervention.

Ethics is an inherent and inseparable part of clinical medicine [ 1 ] as the physician has an ethical obligation (i) to benefit the patient, (ii) to avoid or minimize harm, and to (iii) respect the values and preferences of the patient. Are physicians equipped to fulfill this ethical obligation and can their ethical skills be improved? A goal-oriented educational program [ 2 ] (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) has been shown to improve learner awareness, attitudes, knowledge, moral reasoning, and confidence [ 3 , 4 ].

Goals of ethics education

Ethics, Morality, and Professional Standards

Ethics is a broad term that covers the study of the nature of morals and the specific moral choices to be made. Normative ethics attempts to answer the question, “Which general moral norms for the guidance and evaluation of conduct should we accept, and why?” [ 5 ]. Some moral norms for right conduct are common to human kind as they transcend cultures, regions, religions, and other group identities and constitute common morality (e.g., not to kill, or harm, or cause suffering to others, not to steal, not to punish the innocent, to be truthful, to obey the law, to nurture the young and dependent, to help the suffering, and rescue those in danger). Particular morality refers to norms that bind groups because of their culture, religion, profession and include responsibilities, ideals, professional standards, and so on. A pertinent example of particular morality is the physician's “accepted role” to provide competent and trustworthy service to their patients. To reduce the vagueness of “accepted role,” physician organizations (local, state, and national) have codified their standards. However, complying with these standards, it should be understood, may not always fulfill the moral norms as the codes have “often appeared to protect the profession's interests more than to offer a broad and impartial moral viewpoint or to address issues of importance to patients and society” [ 6 ].

Bioethics and Clinical (Medical) Ethics

A number of deplorable abuses of human subjects in research, medical interventions without informed consent, experimentation in concentration camps in World War II, along with salutary advances in medicine and medical technology and societal changes, led to the rapid evolution of bioethics from one concerned about professional conduct and codes to its present status with an extensive scope that includes research ethics, public health ethics, organizational ethics, and clinical ethics.

Hereafter, the abbreviated term, ethics, will be used as I discuss the principles of clinical ethics and their application to clinical practice.

The Fundamental Principles of Ethics

Beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice constitute the 4 principles of ethics. The first 2 can be traced back to the time of Hippocrates “to help and do no harm,” while the latter 2 evolved later. Thus, in Percival's book on ethics in early 1800s, the importance of keeping the patient's best interest as a goal is stressed, while autonomy and justice were not discussed. However, with the passage of time, both autonomy and justice gained acceptance as important principles of ethics. In modern times, Beauchamp and Childress' book on Principles of Biomedical Ethics is a classic for its exposition of these 4 principles [ 5 ] and their application, while also discussing alternative approaches.

Beneficence

The principle of beneficence is the obligation of physician to act for the benefit of the patient and supports a number of moral rules to protect and defend the right of others, prevent harm, remove conditions that will cause harm, help persons with disabilities, and rescue persons in danger. It is worth emphasizing that, in distinction to nonmaleficence, the language here is one of positive requirements. The principle calls for not just avoiding harm, but also to benefit patients and to promote their welfare. While physicians' beneficence conforms to moral rules, and is altruistic, it is also true that in many instances it can be considered a payback for the debt to society for education (often subsidized by governments), ranks and privileges, and to the patients themselves (learning and research).

Nonmaleficence

Nonmaleficence is the obligation of a physician not to harm the patient. This simply stated principle supports several moral rules − do not kill, do not cause pain or suffering, do not incapacitate, do not cause offense, and do not deprive others of the goods of life. The practical application of nonmaleficence is for the physician to weigh the benefits against burdens of all interventions and treatments, to eschew those that are inappropriately burdensome, and to choose the best course of action for the patient. This is particularly important and pertinent in difficult end-of-life care decisions on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, medically administered nutrition and hydration, and in pain and other symptom control. A physician's obligation and intention to relieve the suffering (e.g., refractory pain or dyspnea) of a patient by the use of appropriate drugs including opioids override the foreseen but unintended harmful effects or outcome (doctrine of double effect) [ 7 , 8 ].

The philosophical underpinning for autonomy, as interpreted by philosophers Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), and accepted as an ethical principle, is that all persons have intrinsic and unconditional worth, and therefore, should have the power to make rational decisions and moral choices, and each should be allowed to exercise his or her capacity for self-determination [ 9 ]. This ethical principle was affirmed in a court decision by Justice Cardozo in 1914 with the epigrammatic dictum, “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body” [ 10 ].

Autonomy, as is true for all 4 principles, needs to be weighed against competing moral principles, and in some instances may be overridden; an obvious example would be if the autonomous action of a patient causes harm to another person(s). The principle of autonomy does not extend to persons who lack the capacity (competence) to act autonomously; examples include infants and children and incompetence due to developmental, mental or physical disorder. Health-care institutions and state governments in the US have policies and procedures to assess incompetence. However, a rigid distinction between incapacity to make health-care decisions (assessed by health professionals) and incompetence (determined by court of law) is not of practical use, as a clinician's determination of a patient's lack of decision-making capacity based on physical or mental disorder has the same practical consequences as a legal determination of incompetence [ 11 ].

Detractors of the principle of autonomy question the focus on the individual and propose a broader concept of relational autonomy (shaped by social relationships and complex determinants such as gender, ethnicity and culture) [ 12 ]. Even in an advanced western country such as United States, the culture being inhomogeneous, some minority populations hold views different from that of the majority white population in need for full disclosure, and in decisions about life support (preferring a family-centered approach) [ 13 ].

Resistance to the principle of patient autonomy and its derivatives (informed consent, truth-telling) in non-western cultures is not unexpected. In countries with ancient civilizations, rooted beliefs and traditions, the practice of paternalism ( this term will be used in this article, as it is well-entrenched in ethics literature, although parentalism is the proper term ) by physicians emanates mostly from beneficence. However, culture (a composite of the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious or social group) is not static and autonomous, and changes with other trends over passing years. It is presumptuous to assume that the patterns and roles in physician-patient relationships that have been in place for a half a century and more still hold true. Therefore, a critical examination of paternalistic medical practice is needed for reasons that include technological and economic progress, improved educational and socioeconomic status of the populace, globalization, and societal movement towards emphasis on the patient as an individual, than as a member of a group. This needed examination can be accomplished by research that includes well-structured surveys on demographics, patient preferences on informed consent, truth-telling, and role in decision-making.

Respecting the principle of autonomy obliges the physician to disclose medical information and treatment options that are necessary for the patient to exercise self-determination and supports informed consent, truth-telling, and confidentiality.

Informed Consent

The requirements of an informed consent for a medical or surgical procedure, or for research, are that the patient or subject (i) must be competent to understand and decide, (ii) receives a full disclosure, (iii) comprehends the disclosure, (iv) acts voluntarily, and (v) consents to the proposed action.

The universal applicability of these requirements, rooted and developed in western culture, has met with some resistance and a suggestion to craft a set of requirements that accommodate the cultural mores of other countries [ 14 ]. In response and in vigorous defense of the 5 requirements of informed consent, Angell wrote, “There must be a core of human rights that we would wish to see honored universally, despite variations in their superficial aspects …The forces of local custom or local law cannot justify abuses of certain fundamental rights, and the right of self-determination on which the doctrine of informed consent is based, is one of them” [ 15 ].

As competence is the first of the requirements for informed consent, one should know how to detect incompetence. Standards (used singly or in combination) that are generally accepted for determining incompetence are based on the patient's inability to state a preference or choice, inability to understand one's situation and its consequences, and inability to reason through a consequential life decision [ 16 ].

In a previously autonomous, but presently incompetent patient, his/her previously expressed preferences (i.e., prior autonomous judgments) are to be respected [ 17 ]. Incompetent (non-autonomous) patients and previously competent (autonomous), but presently incompetent patients would need a surrogate decision-maker. In a non-autonomous patient, the surrogate can use either a substituted judgment standard (i.e., what the patient would wish in this circumstance and not what the surrogate would wish), or a best interests standard (i.e., what would bring the highest net benefit to the patient by weighing risks and benefits). Snyder and Sulmasy [ 18 ], in their thoughtful article, provide a practical and useful option when the surrogate is uncertain of the patient's preference(s), or when patient's preferences have not kept abreast of scientific advances. They suggest the surrogate use “substituted interests,” that is, the patient's authentic values and interests, to base the decision.

Truth-Telling

Truth-telling is a vital component in a physician-patient relationship; without this component, the physician loses the trust of the patient. An autonomous patient has not only the right to know (disclosure) of his/her diagnosis and prognosis, but also has the option to forgo this disclosure. However, the physician must know which of these 2 options the patient prefers.

In the United States, full disclosure to the patient, however grave the disease is, is the norm now, but was not so in the past. Significant resistance to full disclosure was highly prevalent in the US, but a marked shift has occurred in physicians' attitudes on this. In 1961, 88% of physicians surveyed indicated their preference to avoid disclosing a diagnosis [ 19 ]; in 1979, however, 98% of surveyed physicians favored it [ 20 ]. This marked shift is attributable to many factors that include − with no order of importance implied − educational and socioeconomic progress, increased accountability to society, and awareness of previous clinical and research transgressions by the profession.

Importantly, surveys in the US show that patients with cancer and other diseases wish to have been fully informed of their diagnoses and prognoses. Providing full information, with tact and sensitivity, to patients who want to know should be the standard. The sad consequences of not telling the truth regarding a cancer include depriving the patient of an opportunity for completion of important life-tasks: giving advice to, and taking leave of loved ones, putting financial affairs in order, including division of assets, reconciling with estranged family members and friends, attaining spiritual order by reflection, prayer, rituals, and religious sacraments [ 21 , 22 ].

In contrast to the US, full disclosure to the patient is highly variable in other countries [ 23 ]. A continuing pattern in non-western societies is for the physician to disclose the information to the family and not to the patient. The likely reasons for resistance of physicians to convey bad news are concern that it may cause anxiety and loss of hope, some uncertainty on the outcome, or belief that the patient would not be able to understand the information or may not want to know. However, this does not have to be a binary choice, as careful understanding of the principle of autonomy reveals that autonomous choice is a right of a patient, and the patient, in exercising this right, may authorize a family member or members to make decisions for him/her.

Confidentiality

Physicians are obligated not to disclose confidential information given by a patient to another party without the patient's authorization. An obvious exception (with implied patient authorization) is the sharing necessary of medical information for the care of the patient from the primary physician to consultants and other health-care teams. In the present-day modern hospitals with multiple points of tests and consultants, and the use of electronic medical records, there has been an erosion of confidentiality. However, individual physicians must exercise discipline in not discussing patient specifics with their family members or in social gatherings [ 24 ] and social media. There are some noteworthy exceptions to patient confidentiality. These include, among others, legally required reporting of gunshot wounds and sexually transmitted diseases and exceptional situations that may cause major harm to another (e.g., epidemics of infectious diseases, partner notification in HIV disease, relative notification of certain genetic risks, etc.).

Justice is generally interpreted as fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment of persons. Of the several categories of justice, the one that is most pertinent to clinical ethics is distributive justice . Distributive justice refers to the fair, equitable, and appropriate distribution of health-care resources determined by justified norms that structure the terms of social cooperation [ 25 ]. How can this be accomplished? There are different valid principles of distributive justice. These are distribution to each person (i) an equal share, (ii) according to need, (iii) according to effort, (iv) according to contribution, (v) according to merit, and (vi) according to free-market exchanges. Each principle is not exclusive, and can be, and are often combined in application. It is easy to see the difficulty in choosing, balancing, and refining these principles to form a coherent and workable solution to distribute medical resources.

Although this weighty health-care policy discussion exceeds the scope of this review, a few examples on issues of distributive justice encountered in hospital and office practice need to be mentioned. These include allotment of scarce resources (equipment, tests, medications, organ transplants), care of uninsured patients, and allotment of time for outpatient visits (equal time for every patient? based on need or complexity? based on social and or economic status?). Difficult as it may be, and despite the many constraining forces, physicians must accept the requirement of fairness contained in this principle [ 26 ]. Fairness to the patient assumes a role of primary importance when there are conflicts of interests. A flagrant example of violation of this principle would be when a particular option of treatment is chosen over others, or an expensive drug is chosen over an equally effective but less expensive one because it benefits the physician, financially, or otherwise.

Conflicts between Principles

Each one of the 4 principles of ethics is to be taken as a prima facie obligation that must be fulfilled, unless it conflicts, in a specific instance, with another principle. When faced with such a conflict, the physician has to determine the actual obligation to the patient by examining the respective weights of the competing prima facie obligations based on both content and context. Consider an example of a conflict that has an easy resolution: a patient in shock treated with urgent fluid-resuscitation and the placement of an indwelling intravenous catheter caused pain and swelling. Here the principle of beneficence overrides that of nonmaleficence. Many of the conflicts that physicians face, however, are much more complex and difficult. Consider a competent patient's refusal of a potentially life-saving intervention (e.g., instituting mechanical ventilation) or request for a potentially life-ending action (e.g., withdrawing mechanical ventilation). Nowhere in the arena of ethical decision-making is conflict as pronounced as when the principles of beneficence and autonomy collide.

Beneficence has enjoyed a historical role in the traditional practice of medicine. However, giving it primacy over patient autonomy is paternalism that makes a physician-patient relationship analogous to that of a father/mother to a child. A father/mother may refuse a child's wishes, may influence a child by a variety of ways − nondisclosure, manipulation, deception, coercion etc., consistent with his/her thinking of what is best for the child. Paternalism can be further divided into soft and hard .

In soft paternalism, the physician acts on grounds of beneficence (and, at times, nonmaleficence) when the patient is nonautonomous or substantially nonautonomous (e.g., cognitive dysfunction due to severe illness, depression, or drug addiction) [ 27 ]. Soft paternalism is complicated because of the difficulty in determining whether the patient was nonautonomous at the time of decision-making but is ethically defensible as long as the action is in concordance with what the physician believes to be the patient's values. Hard paternalism is action by a physician, intended to benefit a patient, but contrary to the voluntary decision of an autonomous patient who is fully informed and competent, and is ethically indefensible.

On the other end of the scale of hard paternalism is consumerism, a rare and extreme form of patient autonomy, that holds the view that the physician's role is limited to providing all the medical information and the available choices for interventions and treatments while the fully informed patient selects from the available choices. In this model, the physician's role is constrained, and does not permit the full use of his/her knowledge and skills to benefit the patient, and is tantamount to a form of patient abandonment and therefore is ethically indefensible.

Faced with the contrasting paradigms of beneficence and respect for autonomy and the need to reconcile these to find a common ground, Pellegrino and Thomasma [ 28 ] argue that beneficence can be inclusive of patient autonomy as “the best interests of the patients are intimately linked with their preferences” from which “are derived our primary duties to them.”

One of the basic and not infrequent reasons for disagreement between physician and patient on treatment issues is their divergent views on goals of treatment. As goals change in the course of disease (e.g., a chronic neurologic condition worsens to the point of needing ventilator support, or a cancer that has become refractory to treatment), it is imperative that the physician communicates with the patient in clear and straightforward language, without the use of medical jargon, and with the aim of defining the goal(s) of treatment under the changed circumstance. In doing so, the physician should be cognizant of patient factors that compromise decisional capacity, such as anxiety, fear, pain, lack of trust, and different beliefs and values that impair effective communication [ 29 ].

The foregoing theoretical discussion on principles of ethics has practical application in clinical practice in all settings. In the resource book for clinicians, Jonsen et al. [ 30 ] have elucidated a logical and well accepted model (Table ​ (Table2), 2 ), along the lines of the systematic format that practicing physicians have been taught and have practiced for a long time (Chief Complaint, History of Present Illness, Past History, pertinent Family and Social History, Review of Systems, Physical Examination and Laboratory and Imaging studies). This practical approach to problem-solving in ethics involves:

• Clinical assessment (identifying medical problems, treatment options, goals of care)
• Patient (finding and clarifying patient preferences on treatment options and goals of care)
• Quality of life (QOL) (effects of medical problems, interventions and treatments on patient's QOL with awareness of individual biases on what constitutes an acceptable QOL)
• Context (many factors that include family, cultural, spiritual, religious, economic and legal).

Application of principles of ethics in patient care

Using this model, the physician can identify the principles that are in conflict, ascertain by weighing and balancing what should prevail, and when in doubt, turn to ethics literature and expert opinion.

Illustrative Cases

There is a wide gamut of clinical patient encounters with ethical issues, and some, especially those involving end-of-life care decisions, are complex. A few cases (Case 1 is modified from resource book [ 30 ]) are presented below as they highlight the importance of understanding and weighing the ethical principles involved to arrive at an ethically right solution. Case 6 was added during the revision phase of this article as it coincided with the outbreak of Coronavirus Infectious Disease-2019 (COVID-19) that became a pandemic rendering a discussion of its ethical challenges necessary and important.

A 20-year old college student living in the college hostel is brought by a friend to the Emergency Department (ED) because of unrelenting headache and fever. He appeared drowsy but was responsive and had fever (40°C), and neck rigidity on examination. Lumbar puncture was done, and spinal fluid appeared cloudy and showed increased white cells; Gram stain showed Gram-positive diplococci. Based on the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, appropriate antibiotics were begun, and hospitalization was instituted. Although initial consent for diagnosis was implicit, and consent for lumbar puncture was explicit, at this point, the patient refuses treatment without giving any reason, and insists to return to his hostel. Even after explanation by the physician as to the seriousness of his diagnosis, and the absolute need for prompt treatment (i.e., danger to life without treatment), the patient is adamant in his refusal.

Comment . Because of this refusal, the medical indications and patient preferences (see Table ​ Table2) 2 ) are at odds. Is it ethically right to treat against his will a patient who is making a choice that has dire consequences (disability, death) who gives no reason for this decision, and in whom a clear determination of mental incapacity cannot be made (although altered mental status may be presumed)? Here the principle of beneficence and principle of autonomy are in conflict. The weighing of factors: (1) patient may not be making a reasoned decision in his best interest because of temporary mental incapacity; and (2) the severity of life-threatening illness and the urgency to treat to save his life supports the decision in favor of beneficence (i.e., to treat).

A 56-year old male lawyer and current cigarette smoker with a pack-a-day habit for more than 30 years, is found to have a solitary right upper lobe pulmonary mass 5 cm in size on a chest radiograph done as part of an insurance application. The mass has no calcification, and there are no other pulmonary abnormalities. He has no symptoms, and his examination is normal. Tuberculosis skin test is negative, and he has no history of travel to an endemic area of fungal infection. As lung cancer is the most probable and significant diagnosis to consider, and early surgical resection provides the best prospects for cure, the physician, in consultation with the thoracic surgeon, recommends bronchoscopic biopsy and subsequent resection. The patient understands the treatment plan, and the significance of not delaying the treatment. However, he refuses, and states that he does not think he has cancer; and is fearful that the surgery would kill him. Even after further explanations on the low mortality of surgery and the importance of removing the mass before it spreads, he continues to refuse treatment.

Comment . Even though the physician's prescribed treatment, that is, removal of the mass that is probably cancer, affords the best chance of cure, and delay in its removal increases its chance of metastases and reaching an incurable stage − the choice by this well informed and mentally competent patient should be respected. Here, autonomy prevails over beneficence. The physician, however, may not abandon the patient and is obligated to offer continued outpatient visits with advice against making decision based on fear, examinations, periodic tests, and encouragement to seek a second opinion.

A 71-year-old man with very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with pneumonia, sepsis, and respiratory failure. He is intubated and mechanically ventilated. For the past 2 years, he has been on continuous oxygen treatment and was short of breath on minimal exertion. In the past 1 year, he had 2 admissions to the ICU; on both occasions he required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Presently, even with multiple antibiotics, intravenous fluid hydration, and vasopressors, his systolic blood pressure remains below 60 mm Hg, and with high flow oxygen supplementation, his oxygen saturation stays below 80%; his arterial blood pH is 7.0. His liver enzymes are elevated. He is anuric, and over next 8 h his creatinine has risen to 5 mg/dL and continues to rise. He has drifted into a comatose state. The intensivist suggests discontinuation of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation as their continued use is futile. The patient has no advance care directives or a designated health-care proxy.

Comment . The term “futility” is open to different definitions [ 31 ] and is often controversial, and therefore, some experts suggest the alternate term, “clinically non-beneficial interventions” [ 32 ]. However, in this case the term futility is appropriate to indicate that there is evidence of physiological futility (multisystem organ failure in the setting of preexisting end stage COPD, and medical interventions would not reverse the decline). It is appropriate then to discuss the patient's condition with his family with the goal of discontinuing life-sustaining interventions. These discussions should be done with sensitivity, compassion and empathy. Palliative care should be provided to alleviate his symptoms and to support the family until his death and beyond in their bereavement.

A 67-year old widow, an immigrant from southern India, is living with her son and his family in Wisconsin, USA. She was experiencing nausea, lack of appetite and weight loss for a few months. During the past week, she also had dark yellow urine, and yellow coloration of her skin. She has basic knowledge of English. She was brought to a multi-specialty teaching hospital by her son, who informed the doctor that his mother has “jaundice,” and instructed that, if any serious life-threatening disease was found, not to inform her. He asked that all information should come to him, and if there is any cancer not to treat it, since she is older and frail. Investigations in the hospital reveals that she has pancreatic cancer, and chemotherapy, while not likely to cure, would prolong her life.

Comment . In some ancient cultures, authority is given to members of the family (especially senior men) to make decisions that involve other members on marriage, job, and health care. The woman in this case is a dependent of her son, and given this cultural perspective, the son can rightfully claim to have the authority to make health-care decisions for her. Thus, the physician is faced with multiple tasks that may not be consonant. To respect cultural values [ 33 ], to directly learn the patient's preferences, to comply with the American norm of full disclosure to the patient, and to refuse the son's demands.

The principle of autonomy provides the patient the option to delegate decision-making authority to another person. Therefore, the appropriate course would be to take the tactful approach of directly informing the patient (with a translator if needed), that the diagnosed disease would require decisions for appropriate treatment. The physician should ascertain whether she would prefer to make these decisions herself, or whether she would prefer all information to be given to her son, and all decisions to be made by him.

A 45-year-old woman had laparotomy and cholecystectomy for abdominal pain and multiple gall stones. Three weeks after discharge from the hospital, she returned with fever, abdominal pain, and tenderness. She was given antibiotics, and as her fever continued, laparotomy and exploration were undertaken; a sponge left behind during the recent cholecystectomy was found. It was removed, the area cleansed, and incision closed. Antibiotics were continued, and she recovered without further incident and was discharged. Should the surgeon inform the patient of his error?

Comment . Truth-telling, a part of patient autonomy is very much applicable in this situation and disclosure to patient is required [ 34 , 35 , 36 ]. The mistake caused harm to the patient (morbidity and readmission, and a second surgery and monetary loss). Although the end result remedied the harm, the surgeon is obligated to inform the patient of the error and its consequences and offer an apology. Such errors are always reported to the Operating Room Committees and Surgical Quality Improvement Committees of US Hospitals. Hospital-based risk reduction mechanisms (e.g., Risk Management Department) present in most US hospitals would investigate the incident and come up with specific recommendations to mitigate the error and eliminate them in the future. Many institutions usually make financial settlements to obviate liability litigation (fees and hospital charges waived, and/or monetary compensation made to the patient). Elsewhere, if such mechanisms do not exist, it should be reported to the hospital. Acknowledgment from the hospital, apologies from the institution and compensation for the patient are called for. Whether in US or elsewhere, a malpractice suit is very possible in this situation, but a climate of honesty substantially reduces the threat of legal claims as most patients trust their physicians and are not vindictive.

The following scenario is at a city hospital during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic: A 74-year-old woman, residing in an assisted living facility, is brought to the ED with shortness of breath and malaise. Over the past 4 days she had been experiencing dry cough, lack of appetite, and tiredness; 2 days earlier, she stopped eating and started having a low-grade fever. A test for COVID-19 undertaken by the assisted living facility was returned positive on the morning of the ED visit.

She, a retired nurse, is a widow; both of her grown children live out-of-state. She has had hypertension for many years, controlled with daily medications. Following 2 strokes, she was moved to an assisted living facility 3 years ago. She recovered most of her functions after the strokes and required help only for bathing and dressing. She is able to answer questions appropriately but haltingly, because of respiratory distress. She has tachypnea (34/min), tachycardia (120/min), temperature of 101°F, BP 100/60 and 90% O 2 saturation (on supplemental O 2 of 4 L/min). She has dry mouth and tongue and rhonchi on lung auscultation. Her respiratory rate is increasing on observation and she is visibly tiring.

Another patient is now brought in by ambulance; this is a 22-year-old man living in an apartment and has had symptoms of “flu” for a week. Because of the pandemic, he was observing the recommended self-distancing, and had no known exposure to coronavirus. He used saline gargles, acetaminophen, and cough syrup to alleviate his sore throat, cough, and fever. In the past 2 days, his symptoms worsened, and he drove himself to a virus testing station and got tested for COVID-19; he was told that he would be notified of the results. He returned to his apartment and after a sleepless night with fever, sweats, and persistent cough, he woke up and felt drained of all strength. The test result confirmed COVID-19. He then called for an ambulance.

He has been previously healthy. He is a non-smoker and uses alcohol rarely. He is a second-year medical student. He is single, and his parents and sibling live hundreds of miles away.

On examination, he has marked tachypnea (>40/min), shallow breathing, heart rate of 128/min, temperature of 103°F and O 2 saturation of 88 on pulse oximetry. He appears drowsy and is slow to respond to questions. He is propped up to a sitting position as it is uncomfortable for him to be supine. Accessory muscles of neck and intercostals are contracting with each breath, and on auscultation, he has basilar crackles and scattered rhonchi. His O 2 saturation drops to 85 and he is in respiratory distress despite nebulized bronchodilator treatment.

Both of these patients are in respiratory failure, clinically and confirmed by arterial blood gases, and are in urgent need of intubation and mechanical ventilation. However, only one ventilator is available; who gets it?

Comment . The decision to allocate a scarce and potentially life-saving equipment (ventilator) is very difficult as it directly addresses the question “Who shall live when not everyone can live? [ 5 ]. This decision cannot be emotion-driven or arbitrary; nor should it be based on a person's wealth or social standing. Priorities need to be established ethically and must be applied consistently in the same institution and ideally throughout the state and the country. The general social norm to treat all equally or to treat on a first come, first saved basis is not the appropriate choice here. There is a consensus among clinical ethics scholars, that in this situation, maximizing benefits is the dominant value in making a decision [ 37 ]. Maximizing benefits can be viewed in 2 different ways; in lives saved or in life-years saved; they differ in that the first is non-utilitarian while the second is utilitarian. A subordinate consideration is giving priority to patients who have a better chance of survival and a reasonable life expectancy. The other 2 considerations are promoting and rewarding instrumental value (benefit to others) and the acuity of illness. Health-care workers (physicians, nurses, therapists etc.) and research participants have instrumental value as their work benefits others; among them those actively contributing are of more value than those who have made their contributions. The need to prioritize the sickest and the youngest is also a recognized value when these are aligned with the dominant value of maximizing benefits. In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, Emanuel et al. [ 37 ] weighed and analyzed these values and offered some recommendations. Some ethics scholars opine that in times of a pandemic, the burden of making a decision as to who gets a ventilator and who does not (often a life or death choice) should not be on the front-line physicians, as it may cause a severe and life-long emotional toll on them [ 35 , 36 ]. The toll can be severe for nurses and other front-line health-care providers as well. As a safeguard, they propose that the decision should rest on a select committee that excludes doctors, nurses and others who are caring for the patient(s) under consideration [ 38 ].

Both patients described in the case summaries have comparable acuity of illness and both are in need of mechanical ventilator support. However, in the dominant value of maximizing benefits the two patients differ; in terms of life-years saved, the second patient (22-year-old man) is ahead as his life expectancy is longer. Additionally, he is more likely than the older woman, to survive mechanical ventilation, infection, and possible complications. Another supporting factor in favor of the second patient is his potential instrumental value (benefit to others) as a future physician.

Unlike the other illustrative cases, the scenario of these 2 cases, does not lend itself to a peaceful and fully satisfactory resolution. The fairness of allocating a scarce and potentially life-saving resource based on maximizing benefits and preference to instrumental value (benefit to others) is open to question. The American College of Physicians has stated that allocation decisions during resource scarcity should be made “based on patient need, prognosis (determined by objective scientific measure and informed clinical judgment) and effectiveness (i.e., likelihood that the therapy will help the patient to recover), … to maximize the number of patients who will recover” [ 39 ].

This review has covered basics of ethics founded on morality and ethical principles with illustrative examples. In the following segment, professionalism is defined, its alignment with ethics depicted, and virtues desired of a physician (inclusive term for medical doctor regardless of type of practice) are elucidated. It concludes with my vision of an integrated model for patient care.

The core of professionalism is a therapeutic relationship built on competent and compassionate care by a physician that meets the expectation and benefits a patient. In this relationship, which is rooted in the ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, the physician fulfills the elements shown in Table ​ Table3. 3 . Professionalism “demands placing the interest of patients above those of the physician, setting and maintaining standards of competence and integrity, and providing expert advice to society on matters of health” [ 26 , 40 ].

Physicians obligations

Drawing on several decades of experience in teaching and mentoring, I envisage physicians with qualities of both “heart” and “head.” Ethical and humanistic values shape the former, while knowledge (e.g., by study, research, practice) and technical skills (e.g., medical and surgical procedures) form the latter. Figure ​ Figure1 1 is a representation of this model. Morality that forms the base of the model and ethical principles that rest on it were previously explained. Virtues are linked, some more tightly than others, to the principles of ethics. Compassion, a prelude to caring, presupposes sympathy, is expressed in beneficence. Discernment is especially valuable in decision-making when principles of ethics collide. Trustworthiness leads to trust, and is a needed virtue when patients, at their most vulnerable time, place themselves in the hands of physicians. Integrity involves the coherent integration of emotions, knowledge and aspirations while maintaining moral values. Physicians need both professional integrity and personal integrity, as the former may not cover all scenarios (e.g., prescribing ineffective drugs or expensive drugs when effective inexpensive drugs are available, performing invasive treatments or experimental research modalities without fully informed consent, any situation where personal monetary gain is placed over patient's welfare). Conscientiousness is required to determine what is right by critical reflection on good versus bad, better versus good, logical versus emotional, and right versus wrong.

Integrated model of patient care.

In my conceptualized model of patient care (Fig. ​ (Fig.1), 1 ), medical knowledge, skills to apply that knowledge, technical skills, practice-based learning, and communication skills are partnered with ethical principles and professional virtues. The virtues of compassion, discernment, trustworthiness, integrity, and conscientiousness are the necessary building blocks for the virtue of caring. Caring is the defining virtue for all health-care professions. In all interactions with patients, besides the technical expertise of a physician, the human element of caring (one human to another) is needed. In different situations, caring can be expressed verbally and non-verbally (e.g., the manner of communication with both physician and patient closely seated, and with unhurried, softly spoken words); a gentle touch especially when conveying “bad news”; a firmer touch or grip to convey reassurance to a patient facing a difficult treatment choice; to hold the hand of a patient dying alone). Thus, “caring” is in the center of the depicted integrated model, and as Peabody succinctly expressed it nearly a hundred years ago, “The secret of the care of the patient is caring for the patient” [ 41 ].

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

• Log In Username Enter your ACP Online username. Password Enter the password that accompanies your username. Remember me Forget your username or password ?
• Privacy Policy
• Career Connection
• Member Forums

© Copyright 2024 American College of Physicians, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 190 North Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1572 800-ACP-1915 (800-227-1915) or 215-351-2600

If you are unable to login, please try clearing your cookies . We apologize for the inconvenience.

Ethics Case Studies & Education Resources

ACP ethics education resources cover a broad range of issues in clinical ethics, professionalism, teaching, research, health care delivery, and other topics. Each resource can be used as a learning activity and completed for free CME/MOC credits as indicated or used as a teaching tool.

• Ethics Case Studies for CME/MOC
• Ethics Manual Activity for CME/MOC
• Position Paper Activities for CME/MOC

Additional Ethics Case Studies

Acp ethics case study series.

Each case study draws on an ethical challenge encountered by physicians in everyday practice, teaching or research. Free CME/MOC credits are available from ACP’s Online Learning Center. Free CME/MOC credits are available for completion of case studies on Medscape as indicated (a free Medscape login is required for access and completion).

• Chaperones, Professional Boundaries and the Potential for Misunderstandings CME/MOC
• “Why Can’t I Be There?” Ethics Regarding Restrictions on Visitation/Family Caregiver Presence CME/MOC
• Pain Management Near the End-of-Life: What Would Mom Want? CME/MOC
• Ethics, Professionalism, Physician Employment and Health Care Business Practices CME/MOC
• Show Codes, Slow Codes, Full Codes, or No Codes: What Is a Doctor to Do? CME/MOC
• When Resources Are Limited During a Public Health Catastrophe: Nondiscrimination and Ethical Allocation Guidance CME/MOC
• Patient Prejudice? The Patient Said What?... and What Comes Next CME/MOC
• Lab Results Reporting, Ethics, and the 21st Century Cures Act Rule on Information Blocking CME/MOC
• Physician Suicide Prevention: The Ethics and Role of the Physician Colleague and the Healing Community CME/MOC
• Ethics, Electronic Health Record Integrity and the Patient-Physician Relationship CME/MOC
• Ethics, Professionalism, and the Physician Social Media Influencer CME/MOC
• Professional Attire and the Patient-Physician Relationship CME/MOC
• When the Family Caregiver Is a Physician: Negotiating the Ethical Boundaries CME/MOC
• ”Doctor, Can’t You Just Phone a Prescription In?” and Other Ethical Challenges of Telemedicine Encounters CME/MOC
• Serving as an Expert Witness: Is there a Duty? CME  

Ethics Manual (CME/MOC)

The ACP Ethics Manual is the core of College ethics policy. The seventh edition examines issues in medical ethics, reflecting on the ethical tenets of medicine and their application to emerging challenges while also revisiting older issues that are still very pertinent. It helps physicians be prepared to deal with ethical challenges: to identify and reaffirm the fundamentals of medical ethics—such as the patient-physician relationship—and apply principles and reasoned arguments in resolving dilemmas and in debate about ethics topics.

A 25-question quiz module on the seventh edition of the Ethics Manual is available for up to 10 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits TM and MOC Points. The activity is free for ACP members and Annals subscribers.

Annals of Internal Medicine offers the following CME/MOC activity for ACP members and Annals subscribers:

• Ethical and Professionalism Implications of Physician Employment and Health Care Business Practices (Ann Intern Med. published online 15 March 2021) CME/MOC

Additional position papers cover a broad range of health care ethics issues and can be used as a teaching tool.

• Pandemic Treatment Resource Allocation Ethics and Nondiscrimination
• Confidentiality and Privacy: Beyond HIPAA to Honey, Can We Talk?  
• Secret Recordings of Office Visits by Patients  
• Addressing a Colleague's Unprofessional Behavior During Sign-Out  
• Patient Requests for Specific Care: 'Surely You Can Explain to My Insurer That I Need Boniva?'  
• Maintaining Medical Professionalism Online: Posting of Patient Information  
• Banning Harmful Health Behaviors as a Condition of Employment: Where There's Smoke There's Fired?  
• Addressing a Colleague's Sexually Explicit Facebook Post  
• Wellness Programs and Patient Goals of Care  
• Resident Duty Hours: To Hand Over or Gloss Over?
• When an Aging Colleague Seems Impaired  
• Preventive Health Screening, Ethics and the Cognitively Impaired Patient  
• Stewardship of Health Care Resources: Allocating Mechanical Ventilators During Pandemic Influenza  
• Copied and Pasted and Misdiagnosed (or Cloned Notes and Blind Alleys)  
• Stewardship of Health Care Resources: Responding to a Patient’s Request for Antibiotics
• Who Should Get What? Mammography and the Stewardship of Health Care Resources  
• Patient/Physician/Family Caregiver Relationships: When the Family Caregiver Is a Physician  
• Physician Work Stoppages and Political Demonstrations -- Economic Self-Interest or Patient Advocacy? Where Is the Line?  
• To Be or Not to Be: Should I Serve as an Expert Witness?  
• Author! Author! Who Should Be Named in a Published Study? An Ethics Case Study  
• The Difficult Patient: Should You End the Relationship? What Now? An Ethics Case Study  
• Dealing with the "Disruptive" Physician Colleague  
• Must You Disclose Mistakes Made by Other Physicians?
• Providing Care to Undocumented Immigrants
• Twenty-eight additional case studies are published in the book  Ethical Choices: Case Studies for Medical Practice (2nd edition)

For more information on these and other educational content, please contact Lois Snyder Sulmasy, JD, at  [email protected]  or at 215-351-2835.

Ethics Sessions at Internal Medicine Meeting 2020

April 23 – 25, 2020, Los Angeles, CA

Sponsored by the Ethics, Professionalism & Human Rights Committee (EPHRC)

• Ethical Case Challenges: Precision Medicine and Genetics in Primary Care
• Ethics Year in Review
• Spirituality in End-of-Life Care: What is the Physician’s Role?
• Practical Palliative Care: Managing Pain at the End of Life

Ethics education sessions on different topics are offered at the annual Internal Medicine Meeting each year. Information on past Internal Medicine Meeting ethics sessions is available upon request at [email protected] .

Attending the Internal Medicine Meeting is an excellent way to fulfill your state CME relicensure requirements. The ethics sessions may fulfill specific CME content requirements of your state’s licensure renewal. Letters of participation documenting attendance are available online .

For more information on these and other educational content, please contact Lois Snyder Sulmasy, JD, at [email protected] or at 215-351-2835.

• News & Events

Search form

Ethics in medicine.

The Ethics in Medicine website is an educational resource designed for clinicians in training. The website is hosted and maintained by the Department of Bioethics & Humanities at the University of Washington School of Medicine. The topics, cases, and resources covered here are intended to be used as a resource by the UWSOM community and to supplement or support other teaching and learning throughout the curriculum. It is not designed to answer patient-specfic clinical, professional, legal, or ethical questions. Information contained on the website is not intended as a substitute for professional consultation, and is subject to copyright .

NOTE: The UW Dept. of Bioethics & Humanities is in the process of updating all Ethics in Medicine articles for attentiveness to the issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion.  Please check back soon for updates!

Please send comments on this site to [email protected] . This site was originally established by a grant.  If you'd like to help make regular improvements and updates a reality, please consider making a gift to the department . 

Bioethics Topics

• Bioethics Cases
• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Focus Areas
• Bioethics Resources

Find case studies on topics in health care and biotechnology ethics, including end-of-life care, clinical ethics, pandemics, culturally competent care, vulnerable patient populations, and other topics in bioethics. (For permission to reprint cases, submit requests to [email protected] .)

Cases can also be viewed by the following categories:

Six case studies explore how accessibility intersects with health care, education, and workplace ethics. The cases serve as a foundation for difficult dialogues, in-class discussions, or workshops and should be used by stakeholders involved in disability advocacy, education, health care, and policy-making.

An obstetrician treating a heroin-addicted mother considers whether to comply with state law requiring medical professionals to report drug-addicted pregnant women to law enforcement for child endangerment.

A drug treatment counselor considers whether to allow a patient a second chance in the drug-treatment program, against stated program rules.

A religious cleric considers how to support a member of the community struggling with depression and alcoholism, who declines recommended referral to expert medical treatment.

A primary care physician considers if s/he can competently provide treatment to a patient who may have a serious psychiatric disorder and does not wish to go to another doctor.

A physician considers whether to honor a promising medical student’s request to withhold a diagnosis of depression from her record. The medical student fears a record of depression could hurt her career.

A psychologist considers whether there is a duty to warn a couple whom the jealous patient has expressed a desire to stalk and frighten.

An adolescent medicine physician considers how to help a potentially suicidal non-minor young adult who declines treatment. Potential options include the possibility of petitioning the court to coerce inpatient treatment.

A psychiatrist considers whether to use a placebo (a fake treatment) on a patient whom the clinician thinks might benefit.

While organ donation is necessary to alleviate suffering and save lives, questions of autonomy, coercion, and the yuk factor deserve careful consideration as we seek to increase supply in the face of unrelenting demand.

• More pages:

Case report

BMC Medical Ethics welcomes well-described reports of cases that include the following: • Unreported or unusual side effects or adverse interactions involving medications. • Unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease. • New associations or variations in disease processes. • Presentations, diagnoses and/or management of new and emerging diseases. • An unexpected association between diseases or symptoms. • An unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient. • Findings that shed new light on the possible pathogenesis of a disease or an adverse effect.

Case reports submitted to BMC Medical Ethics should make a contribution to medical knowledge and must have educational value or highlight the need for a change in clinical practice or diagnostic/prognostic approaches. BMC Medical Ethics will not consider case reports describing preventive or therapeutic interventions, as these generally require stronger evidence. We will not consider reports on topics that have already been well characterised or where other, similar, cases have already been published. 

Authors should describe how the case report is rare or unusual as well as its educational and/or scientific merits in the covering letter that will accompany the submission of the manuscript. Case report submissions will be assessed by the Editors and will be sent for peer review if considered appropriate for the journal.

Case reports should include relevant positive and negative findings from history, examination and investigation, and can include clinical photographs, provided these are accompanied by a statement that written consent to publish was obtained from the patient(s). Case reports should include an up-to-date review of all previous cases in the field. Authors should follow the CARE guidelines and the CARE checklist should be provided as an additional file.

Authors should seek written and signed consent to publish the information from the patient(s) or their guardian(s) prior to submission. The submitted manuscript must include a statement that this consent was obtained in the consent to publish section as detailed in our editorial policies .

Professionally produced Visual Abstracts BMC Medical Ethics will consider visual abstracts. As an author submitting to the journal, you may wish to make use of services provided at Springer Nature for high quality and affordable visual abstracts where you are entitled to a 20% discount. Click here to find out more about the service, and your discount will be automatically be applied when using this link.

Preparing your manuscript

The information below details the section headings that you should include in your manuscript and what information should be within each section.

Please note that your manuscript must include a 'Declarations' section including all of the subheadings (please see below for more information).

Title page 

The title page should:

• "A versus B in the treatment of C: a randomized controlled trial", "X is a risk factor for Y: a case control study", "What is the impact of factor X on subject Y: A systematic review, A case report etc."
• or, for non-clinical or non-research studies: a description of what the article reports
• if a collaboration group should be listed as an author, please list the Group name as an author. If you would like the names of the individual members of the Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please include this information in the “Acknowledgements” section in accordance with the instructions below
• Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT , do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria . Notably an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (and if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript
•  indicate the corresponding author

The Abstract should not exceed 350 words. Please minimize the use of abbreviations and do not cite references in the abstract. The abstract must include the following separate sections:

• Background: why the case should be reported and its novelty
• Case presentation: a brief description of the patient’s clinical and demographic details, the diagnosis, any interventions and the outcomes
• Conclusions: a brief summary of the clinical impact or potential implications of the case report

Keywords 

Three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

The Background section should explain the background to the case report or study, its aims, a summary of the existing literature.

Case presentation

This section should include a description of the patient’s relevant demographic details, medical history, symptoms and signs, treatment or intervention, outcomes and any other significant details.

Discussion and Conclusions

This should discuss the relevant existing literature and should state clearly the main conclusions, including an explanation of their relevance or importance to the field.

List of abbreviations

If abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations should be provided.

Declarations

All manuscripts must contain the following sections under the heading 'Declarations':

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, availability of data and materials, competing interests, authors' contributions, acknowledgements.

• Authors' information (optional)

Please see below for details on the information to be included in these sections.

If any of the sections are not relevant to your manuscript, please include the heading and write 'Not applicable' for that section. 

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

• include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
• include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.

See our editorial policies for more information.

If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

If your manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including any individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person, or in the case of children, their parent or legal guardian. All presentations of case reports must have consent for publication.

You can use your institutional consent form or our consent form if you prefer. You should not send the form to us on submission, but we may request to see a copy at any stage (including after publication).

See our editorial policies for more information on consent for publication.

If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

All manuscripts must include an ‘Availability of data and materials’ statement. Data availability statements should include information on where data supporting the results reported in the article can be found including, where applicable, hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets analysed or generated during the study. By data we mean the minimal dataset that would be necessary to interpret, replicate and build upon the findings reported in the article. We recognise it is not always possible to share research data publicly, for instance when individual privacy could be compromised, and in such instances data availability should still be stated in the manuscript along with any conditions for access.

Authors are also encouraged to preserve search strings on searchRxiv https://searchrxiv.org/ , an archive to support researchers to report, store and share their searches consistently and to enable them to review and re-use existing searches. searchRxiv enables researchers to obtain a digital object identifier (DOI) for their search, allowing it to be cited. 

Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]
• The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
• The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
• The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].
• Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

More examples of template data availability statements, which include examples of openly available and restricted access datasets, are available here .

BioMed Central strongly encourages the citation of any publicly available data on which the conclusions of the paper rely in the manuscript. Data citations should include a persistent identifier (such as a DOI) and should ideally be included in the reference list. Citations of datasets, when they appear in the reference list, should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow journal style. Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs. For example:

Hao Z, AghaKouchak A, Nakhjiri N, Farahmand A. Global integrated drought monitoring and prediction system (GIDMaPS) data sets. figshare. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801

With the corresponding text in the Availability of data and materials statement:

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]. [Reference number]  

If you wish to co-submit a data note describing your data to be published in BMC Research Notes , you can do so by visiting our submission portal . Data notes support open data and help authors to comply with funder policies on data sharing. Co-published data notes will be linked to the research article the data support ( example ).

All financial and non-financial competing interests must be declared in this section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of competing interests. If you are unsure whether you or any of your co-authors have a competing interest please contact the editorial office.

Please use the authors initials to refer to each authors' competing interests in this section.

If you do not have any competing interests, please state "The authors declare that they have no competing interests" in this section.

All sources of funding for the research reported should be declared. If the funder has a specific role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript, this should be declared.

The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section. Guidance and criteria for authorship can be found in our editorial policies .

Please use initials to refer to each author's contribution in this section, for example: "FC analyzed and interpreted the patient data regarding the hematological disease and the transplant. RH performed the histological examination of the kidney, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Please acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article who does not meet the criteria for authorship including anyone who provided professional writing services or materials.

Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

See our editorial policies for a full explanation of acknowledgements and authorship criteria.

If you do not have anyone to acknowledge, please write "Not applicable" in this section.

Group authorship (for manuscripts involving a collaboration group): if you would like the names of the individual members of a collaboration Group to be searchable through their individual PubMed records, please ensure that the title of the collaboration Group is included on the title page and in the submission system and also include collaborating author names as the last paragraph of the “Acknowledgements” section. Please add authors in the format First Name, Middle initial(s) (optional), Last Name. You can add institution or country information for each author if you wish, but this should be consistent across all authors.

Please note that individual names may not be present in the PubMed record at the time a published article is initially included in PubMed as it takes PubMed additional time to code this information.

Authors' information

This section is optional.

You may choose to use this section to include any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader's interpretation of the article, and understand the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors' qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list. They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables.

Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data). Footnotes to the title or the authors of the article are not given reference symbols.

Always use footnotes instead of endnotes.

Examples of the Vancouver reference style are shown below.

See our editorial policies for author guidance on good citation practice

Web links and URLs: All web links and URLs, including links to the authors' own websites, should be given a reference number and included in the reference list rather than within the text of the manuscript. They should be provided in full, including both the title of the site and the URL, as well as the date the site was accessed, in the following format: The Mouse Tumor Biology Database. http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do . Accessed 20 May 2013. If an author or group of authors can clearly be associated with a web link, such as for weblogs, then they should be included in the reference.

Example reference style:

Article within a journal

Smith JJ. The world of science. Am J Sci. 1999;36:234-5.

Article within a journal (no page numbers)

Rohrmann S, Overvad K, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Jakobsen MU, Egeberg R, Tjønneland A, et al. Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. BMC Medicine. 2013;11:63.

Article within a journal by DOI

Slifka MK, Whitton JL. Clinical implications of dysregulated cytokine production. Dig J Mol Med. 2000; doi:10.1007/s801090000086.

Article within a journal supplement

Frumin AM, Nussbaum J, Esposito M. Functional asplenia: demonstration of splenic activity by bone marrow scan. Blood 1979;59 Suppl 1:26-32.

Book chapter, or an article within a book

Wyllie AH, Kerr JFR, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. In: Bourne GH, Danielli JF, Jeon KW, editors. International review of cytology. London: Academic; 1980. p. 251-306.

OnlineFirst chapter in a series (without a volume designation but with a DOI)

Saito Y, Hyuga H. Rate equation approaches to amplification of enantiomeric excess and chiral symmetry breaking. Top Curr Chem. 2007. doi:10.1007/128_2006_108.

Complete book, authored

Blenkinsopp A, Paxton P. Symptoms in the pharmacy: a guide to the management of common illness. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998.

Online document

Doe J. Title of subordinate document. In: The dictionary of substances and their effects. Royal Society of Chemistry. 1999. http://www.rsc.org/dose/title of subordinate document. Accessed 15 Jan 1999.

Online database

Healthwise Knowledgebase. US Pharmacopeia, Rockville. 1998. http://www.healthwise.org. Accessed 21 Sept 1998.

Supplementary material/private homepage

Doe J. Title of supplementary material. 2000. http://www.privatehomepage.com. Accessed 22 Feb 2000.

University site

Doe, J: Title of preprint. http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/mydata.html (1999). Accessed 25 Dec 1999.

Doe, J: Trivial HTTP, RFC2169. ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2169.txt (1999). Accessed 12 Nov 1999.

Organization site

ISSN International Centre: The ISSN register. http://www.issn.org (2006). Accessed 20 Feb 2007.

Dataset with persistent identifier

Zheng L-Y, Guo X-S, He B, Sun L-J, Peng Y, Dong S-S, et al. Genome data from sweet and grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). GigaScience Database. 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.5524/100012 .

Figures, tables and additional files

See  General formatting guidelines  for information on how to format figures, tables and additional files.

Submit manuscript

Important information

Editorial board

For authors

For editorial board members

For reviewers

• Manuscript editing services

Annual Journal Metrics

Citation Impact 2023 Journal Impact Factor: 3.0 5-year Journal Impact Factor: 3.1 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 1.384 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.975 Speed 2023 Submission to first editorial decision (median days): 12 Submission to acceptance (median days): 200 Usage 2023 Downloads: 1,830,857 Altmetric mentions: 1,282

• More about our metrics

Peer-review Terminology

The following summary describes the peer review process for this journal:

Identity transparency: Single anonymized

Reviewer interacts with: Editor

Review information published: Review reports. Reviewer Identities reviewer opt in. Author/reviewer communication

More information is available here

• Follow us on Twitter

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Cambridge Medical Ethics Workbook: Case studies, Commentaries and Activities: M Parker, Donna Dickenson. Cambridge University Press, 2001,  29.95, pp 359. ISBN 0521788633

2003, Journal of Medical Ethics

Related Papers

Case Analysis in …

Marian A Verkerk

Journal of Medical Ethics

miguel kottow

Seishin shinkeigaku zasshi = Psychiatria et neurologia Japonica

Silvia Iannaccone

Christopher Coope

Lucassen A.m. , Marian A Verkerk

Australian and New Zealand journal of medicine

Paul Macneill

Elisa Rapaport

Fields such as medical ethics have long suffered from a disconnect between theory and application. “Real-world” practitioners understand the day-to-day realities that inspire and inhibit their actions, and “ivory tower” scholars sometimes fall into the trap of presuming that non-scholars cannot understand theory or, worse yet, that ethical theory need not be informed by practical experience. There are plenty of applied ethicists across disciplines bridging this divide, yet problems persist amongst faculty who underestimate the interest and capacity of medical and nursing students, and even amongst academic administrators who presume ethics is too obscure a topic to warrant seminar-style discussion. For many nurses, philosophy is intimidating. Yet with each new semester I find that most of my nursing students need not have worried about how they might grasp what are foreign-sounding terms like deontology, teleology, and utilitarianism. They already understand the concepts and have employed them in their lives — usually both personally and professionally. I have also found that most nurses could themselves populate a textbook with true-life examples demonstrating every such concept I challenge them to consider. Like most philosophers, I bring a blend of critical analysis, theory, and logical consistency to the courses I teach. My goal is to expose medical professionals to the processes that guide their decision-making, to the historical context of patient autonomy, and to potential dilemmas that await them in their careers as they strive for professional excellence. It is not enough to memorize cases, dates, theorists, and terminology. For the experience to truly be transformative – to successfully equip and empower students to reflect on the implications of their actions on patients, colleagues, and the profession in general – the union of theory and practice is essential. The process is most effective when students are encouraged to share and reflect on their experiences in the context of improving their moral decision-making. With such input, those scholars tweaking the theoretical approaches to today’s problems can better grasp the feasibility of their theories. The theories can evolve and as originally hoped, influence behavior, when given the opportunity to be taken seriously in the lives of the moral agents. The field of bioethics and philosophy in particular could benefit from listening to the professionals who are living ethical dilemmas every day. This paper will provide a series of brief excerpts from student stories demonstrating the relevancy of moral theory as typically applied to issues in health care. It is an example of an on-going conversation amongst disciplines that we must engage in at the academic level in order to truly appreciate and fulfill the promise of humanity in medicine.

Persona y Bioética

Pablo Requena

Clinical ethics refers to an emerging field in clinical medicine that focuses on the process of ethical decision making in the clinical setting. It has developed as a result of a growing awareness that modern medicine – characterized by technological progress, cultural diversity, and social challenges – is posing a range of new “ethical dilemmas” that medical science alone cannot solve. For this reason, clinical ethics is often linked to “ethics consultation”, which consists in services provided by an individual ethicist, ethics team or committee to address the ethical issues involved in a specific clinical case. Although at the beginning clinical ethics mainly developed as a methodological analysis to arrive at justifying clinical ethical decisions, it has quickly become clear that the difficulty in clinical decision making is only one aspect of wider ethical problems pertaining to the doctor-patient relationship as a whole and, probably, to the core value of the medical profession. The principlism method is usually presented as the most popular methodological approach to the analysis of clinical cases. However, strong criticism against this model has been raised, and other alternative approaches are referred to, such as the casuistry model. Recently, significant contributions have been made by the narrative medicine and virtue ethics approaches. According to these methodologies, a sound anthropology as well as a good relationship with the sick person are key elements required of any person engaged in a medical practice that aims to be genuinely appropriate from an ethical perspective. La ética clínica es un prominente campo de la medicina clínica cuyo objeto de estudio es el proceso decisional ético en la práctica médica. En los últimos decenios se ha desarrollado enormemente debido a la toma de conciencia de los dilemas éticos que lleva consigo la práctica moderna, y cuya solución no encuentra respuesta en la sola ciencia médica. La ética clínica está ligada a la “consulta ética”, que se realiza a un experto o a un comité ético. Desde el principio de la ética clínica ha sido claro que el análisis metodológico del proceso decisional es sólo una parte de cuadro más amplio que tiene que considera los aspectos éticos de la relación médico-paciente. El método más utilizado para el análisis del caso clínico es el principialismo, al que sigue por importancia la casuística bioética. Junto a las ventajas de estos modelos, desde su origen han recibido fuertes críticas, lo que ha condicionado la búsqueda de vías alternativas. Recientemente la medicina narrativa y la perspectiva ética de las virtudes han desarrollado una reflexión significativa en este sentido, proponiendo una metodología que apoya en una antropología bien fundada, que propone un modo adecuado de relación con la persona enferma en su singularidad.

Almeida Neto

Raphael Cohen-almagor

MEDICAL ETHICS AT THE DAWN OF THE 21ST CENTURY Edited by Raphael Cohen-Almagor (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 2000), Vol. 913 of the Annals, 265 pp. Do humans have a right to tamper with the divinely mandated processes of life and death or are they entitled to exercise control in this area to achieve a world of their own design? Questions concerning the role of doctors, abortion, mercy killings, and genetics are troubling and highly problematic, requiring thorough examination and careful probing. Medical Ethics at the Dawn of the 21st Century, (Vol.913 of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences), offers an overview of some of the pressing themes in medical ethics. Its design is both interdisciplinary and comparative, offering philosophical, legal, and medical perspectives of scholars from North America, Europe, and Israel who analyze how their respective countries try to cope with and find answers for pressing concerns. “People are living longer lives,” said Raphael Cohen-Almagor, the book’s editor. “Medicine is able to monitor and control endemic diseases that in the past caused rapid death, but the process of dying from diseases such as cancer and AIDS is long, painful, and very costly.” Cohen-Almagor noted that the book looks at the questions that arise as to appropriate deployment and allocation of expensive resources and the criteria that must be employed when treatment is limited because society is unable to withstand the cost. The essays revolve around three main themes: appropriate roles for doctors, decisions at the beginning and end of life, and medical ethics in the age of biotechnology. They consider the philosophical difficulties inherent in the concepts of medical ethics and also practical judicial problems. To order a review copy of Medical Ethics at the Dawn of the 21st Century, please call Jill Stolarik at 212.838.0230, ext.232. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Michael Potts

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

Henk ten Have

Journal of medical ethics

Rosamond Rhodes

Nigerian journal of medicine : journal of the National Association of Resident Doctors of Nigeria

Godfrey Iyalomhe

Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease

Raanan Gillon

Kannamma Raman

Shamima Lasker

Journal International de Bioéthique

George J . Agich

BMC Health Services Research

Ingrid Morales

Journal of Medical Ethics - J MED ETHICS

Dolores Dooley

Kate Diesfeld

Vivienne Harpwood

Glenn E McGee

The American Journal of Bioethics

Matthew Butkus

Jan Helge Solbakk

Yesim Isil Ulman

BJPsych Open

Graham Behr

Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

Elissa Hamlat

utopia.duth.gr

Fernando Cascais

Medical Education

Dennis Novack

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Dhastagir Sheriff

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Case Studies in Medical Ethics

University of Massachusetts Medical Center Worcester

In days gone by, the regulation of medical behavior was left to internal professional peer review. Those with similar ideas could judge best how medical matters were applied to those needing attention. The wisdom of such self-policing has been under considerable review in the past decade, as a somewhat new breed of individuals has emerged, mostly from the fields of philosophy and jurisprudence, whose roles appear to be those of examiners of conduct and teachers of the complexities, manners, and concepts inherent in the sphere of medical decision making.

Robert Veatch is one of this new breed, and his latest treatise, Case Studies in Medical Ethics , is directed at helping the medical practitioner (as well as the medical policy-maker, educator, innovator, and participant) grasp the complexities of ethics and human values at a most elemental level. The case method has frequently been employed as a pedagogic tool for fastening abstract

Krant MJ. Case Studies in Medical Ethics. JAMA. 1977;238(24):2641. doi:10.1001/jama.1977.03280250067031

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

• Archives & Special Collections home
• Art Library home
• Ekstrom Library home
• Kornhauser Health Sciences Library home
• Law Library home
• Music Library home
• University of Louisville Hospital home
• Interlibrary Loan
• Off-Campus Login
• Renew Books
• Cardinal Card
• My Print Center
• Business Ops
• Cards Career Connection

Search Site

Search catalog, bioethics and medical humanism: clinical ethics and case studies.

• General Bioethics Resources
• Research Ethics
• Clinical Ethics and Case Studies

General Health Care

• The American Journal of Bioethics ISSN: 1536-0075 / 1526-5161
• Bioethics ISSN: 1467-8519
• BMC Medical Ethics Only Open Access content available. ISSN: 1536-0075 / 1526-5161
• Journal of Medical Ethics ISSN: 1473-4257 / 0306-6800
• Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy ISSN: 1572-8633 / 1386-7423
• Neuroethics ISSN: 1874-5504 / 1874-5490
• Nursing Ethics ISSN: 1477-0989 / 0969-7330

Web Resources

• AMA Ethics Hub Resources from the American Medical Association relating to medical ethics in general, as well as topics including patient-physician relationships; consent, communication, and decision-making; privacy, confidentiality, and medical records; genetics and reproductive medicine; caring for patients at the end of life; organ procurement and transplantation; interprofessional relationships; and COVID-19.
• CDC Scientific Integrity Includes resources on human subject participation in CDC research, privacy and confidentiality, and public health ethics.
• Code of Ethics for Nurses Code of ethics from the American Nurses Association.
• Ethics Handbook for Dentists Ethical guidance from the American College of Dentists.
• Public Health Code of Ethics Code of ethics from the American Public Health Association.

Dental Ethics

• Big Data and Digitalization in Dentistry Favaretto M, Shaw D, De Clercq E, Joda T, Elger BS. Big data and digitalization in dentistry: A systematic review of the ethical issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17:2495. DOI: 10.3390/jkerph.17072495.
• Consumer-Driven and Commercialised Practice in Dentistry Holden ACL. Consumer-driven and commercialised practice in dentistry: An ethical and professional problem? Med Health Care Philos. 2017; 21:583-589. DOI: 10.1007/s11019-018-9834-1.
• HPV, Oropharyngeal Cancer, and the Role of the Dentist Northridge ME, Manji N, Piamonte RT, More FG, Katz RV. HPV, oropharyngeal cancer, and the role of the dentist: A professional ethical approach. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012 Nov; 23(4S):47-57. DOI: 10.1353/hpu.2012.0185.
• Is Dentistry the Orphaned Field of Medicine? Ethical Consideration for Evidence-Based Dentistry Sellars S, Wassif HS. Is dentistry the orphaned field of medicine? Ethical consideration for evidence-based dentistry. Br Dent J. 2019 Feb; 226(3):177-179. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2019.145.
• Journal of the American College of Dentists Research Ethics Issue J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer; 81(3).

Nursing Ethics

Public Health Ethics

Ethics in Healthcare Management

Organ Transplantation

Ethics in Specific Specialties - Books

Allied Health

Emergency Medicine

Forensic Medicine

Gerontology

Home Healthcare

Infectious Disease

International Aid

Medical Imaging

Military Medicine

Pain Medicine

Palliative Care

Primary Care

• << Previous: Research Ethics
• Last Updated: Jan 12, 2024 2:49 PM
• Librarian Login

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals

You are here

• Volume 36, Issue 11
• A case study from the perspective of medical ethics: refusal of treatment in an ambulance
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Hasan Erbay 1 ,
• Sultan Alan 2 ,
• Selim Kadıoğlu 1
• 1 Department of Deontology and History of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey
• 2 Cukurova University Adana Health High School, Department of Midwifery, Adana, Turkey
• Correspondence to Dr Hasan Erbay, Cukurova University, Department of Deontology and History of Medicine Balcali Kampusu 01330 Yuregir, Adana, Turkey; hasanerbay{at}yahoo.com

This paper will examine a sample case encountered by ambulance staff in the context of the basic principles of medical ethics.

An accident takes place on an intercity highway. Ambulance staff pick up the injured driver and medical intervention is initiated. The driver suffers from a severe stomach ache, which is also affecting his back. Evaluating the patient, the ambulance doctor suspects that he might be experiencing internal bleeding. For this reason, venous access, in the doctor's opinion, should be achieved and the patient should be quickly started on an intravenous serum.

The patient, however, who has so far kept his silence, objects to the administration of the serum. The day this is taking place is within the month of Ramadan and the patient is fasting. The patient states that he is fasting and that his fast will be broken and his religious practice disrupted in the event that the serum is administered. The ambulance doctor informs him that his condition is life-threatening and that the serum must be administered immediately. The patient now takes a more vehement stand. ‘If I am to die, I want to die while I am fasting. Today is Friday and I have always wanted to die on such a holy day,’ he says.

The ambulance physician has little time to decide. How should the patient be treated? Which type of behaviour will create the least erosion of his values?

• Quality/value of life
• informed consent
• right to refuse treatment
• moral and religious aspects

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.035600

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Competing interests None.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Drug intake during Ramadan N Aadil et al., BMJ, 2004
• Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor EJ Jardas et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• Short-term and long-term distributional consequences of prenatal malnutrition and stress: using Ramadan as a natural experiment Farhan Majid et al., BMJ Global Health, 2019
• Diabetes, driving and fasting during Ramadan: the interplay between secular and religious law Nazim Ghouri et al., BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 2018
• Type 2 diabetes patient’s perspective on Ramadan fasting: a qualitative study Jun Yang Lee et al., BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 2017
• Consent for anaesthesia S M White, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2004
• Rationality, religion and refusal of treatment in an ambulance revisited Kate McMahon-Parkes, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2012
• Impact of Ramadan fasting on glucose levels in women with gestational diabetes mellitus treated with diet alone or diet plus metformin: a continuous glucose monitoring study Bachar O Afandi et al., BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 2017
• Recommendations for management of diabetes during Ramadan: update 2015 Mahmoud Ibrahim et al., BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 2015
• Management of people with diabetes wanting to fast during Ramadan E Hui et al., BMJ, 2010