Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2017
    In:  Palliative and Supportive Care Vol. 15, No. 6 ( 2017-12), p. 665-674
    In: Palliative and Supportive Care, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 15, No. 6 ( 2017-12), p. 665-674
    Abstract: Advanced care plans (ACPs) are designed to convey the wishes of patients with regards to their care in the event of incapacity. There are a number of prerequisites for creation of an effective ACP. First, the patient must be aware of their condition, their prognosis, the likely trajectory of the illness, and the potential treatment options available to them. Second, patient input into ACP must be free of any coercive factors. Third, the patient must be able to remain involved in adapting their ACP as their condition evolves. Continued use of familial determination and collusion within the local healthcare system, however, has raised concerns that the basic requirements for effective ACP cannot be met. Method: To assess the credibility of these concerns, we employed a video vignette approach depicting a family of three adult children discussing whether or not to reveal a cancer diagnosis to their mother. Semistructured interviews with 72 oncology patients and 60 of their caregivers were conducted afterwards to explore the views of the participants on the different positions taken by the children. Results: Collusion, family-centric decision making, adulteration of information provided to patients, and circumnavigation of patient involvement appear to be context-dependent. Patients and families alike believe that patients should be told of their conditions. However, the incidence of collusion and familial determination increases with determinations of a poor prognosis, a poor anticipated response to chemotherapy, and a poor premorbid health status. Financial considerations with respect to care determinations remain secondary considerations. Significance of results: Our data suggest that ACPs can be effectively constructed in family-centric societies so long as healthcare professionals continue to update and educate families on the patient's situation. Collusion and familial intervention in the decision-making process are part of efforts to protect the patient from distress and are neither solely dependent on cultural nor an “all-or-nothing” phenomenon. The response of families are context-dependent and patient-specific, weighing the patient's right to know and prepare and the potential distress it is likely to cause. In most cases, the news is broken gently over time to allow the patient to digest the information and for the family to assess how well they cope with the news. Furthermore, the actions of families are dependent upon their understanding of the situation, highlighting the need for continued engagement with healthcare professionals.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1478-9515 , 1478-9523
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2121158-9
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Springer Science and Business Media LLC ; 2020
    In:  BMC Medical Ethics Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2020-12)
    In: BMC Medical Ethics, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2020-12)
    Abstract: Several jurisdictions, including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and most recently Ireland, have a public interest or public good criterion for granting waivers of consent in biomedical research using secondary health data or tissue. However, the concept of the public interest is not well defined in this context, which creates difficulties for institutions, institutional review boards (IRBs) and regulators trying to implement the criterion. Main text This paper clarifies how the public interest criterion can be defensibly deployed. We first explain the ethical basis for requiring waivers to only be granted to studies meeting the public interest criterion, then explore how further criteria may be set to determine the extent to which a given study can legitimately claim to be in the public interest. We propose an approach that does not attempt to measure magnitude of benefit directly, but rather takes into account metrics that are more straightforward to apply. To ensure consistent and justifiable interpretation, research institutions and IRBs should also incorporate procedural features such as transparency and public engagement in determining which studies satisfy the public interest requirement. Conclusion The requirement of public interest for consent waivers in secondary biomedical research should be guided by well-defined criteria for systematic evaluation. Such a criteria and its application need to be periodically subject to intra-committee and intra-institution review, reflection, deliberation and amendment.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1472-6939
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2041552-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of Medical Ethics, BMJ, Vol. 47, No. 1 ( 2021-01), p. 47-50
    Abstract: Therapeutic privilege (TP) is a defence that may be available to doctors who fail to disclose to the patient relevant information when seeking informed consent for treatment if they have a reasonable belief that providing that information would likely cause the patient concerned serious physical or mental harm. In a landmark judgement, the Singapore Court of Appeal introduced a novel interpretation of TP, identifying circumstances in which it might be used with patients who did not strictly lack capacity but might be inclined to refuse recommended treatments. In this paper, we explore the conceptual and practical challenges of this novel interpretation of TP. We propose that more emphasis should be placed on forms of shared and supported decision-making that foster the autonomy of patients with compromised mental capacity while being mindful of the need to safeguard their well-being. The kind of privilege that doctors might need to invoke is one of time and supportive expertise to ensure a flexible, responsive approach calibrated to the individual patients’ needs. The provision of such service would extinguish the need for the novel TP proposed by the Singapore Court of Appeal.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0306-6800 , 1473-4257
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: BMJ
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2026397-1
    SSG: 0
    SSG: 1
    SSG: 5,1
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Project MUSE ; 2013
    In:  Asian Bioethics Review Vol. 5, No. 2 ( 2013), p. 155-156
    In: Asian Bioethics Review, Project MUSE, Vol. 5, No. 2 ( 2013), p. 155-156
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1793-9453
    Language: English
    Publisher: Project MUSE
    Publication Date: 2013
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2602378-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2022
    In:  Journal of Law and the Biosciences Vol. 9, No. 2 ( 2022-07-01)
    In: Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 9, No. 2 ( 2022-07-01)
    Abstract: This paper explores the ethical challenges in deciding whether to vaccinate individuals lacking the decision-making capacity needed to provide informed consent during a public health emergency like COVID-19. The best interests standard ordinarily governs such decisions, which under the law in jurisdictions like England, Wales and Singapore takes into account the individual’s past wishes and present preferences. However, in a public health emergency, the interests of third parties become more salient: those whom the unvaccinated individual might expose to infection have an interest in the individual’s being vaccinated. While current mental capacity law has not been interpreted to take such public health considerations into account, we argue that such considerations are nevertheless ethically relevant, and can legitimately be weighed up alongside other considerations such as the preferences of the individual and impacts on their health. This is most relevant for individuals lacking decision-making capacity who have previously declined or presently resist vaccination. The public health impact of vaccination may in some instances be enough to outweigh preferences of the individual and justify providing vaccination against their past or present wishes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2053-9711
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2756090-9
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    SAGE Publications ; 2017
    In:  Nursing Ethics Vol. 24, No. 5 ( 2017-08), p. 525-537
    In: Nursing Ethics, SAGE Publications, Vol. 24, No. 5 ( 2017-08), p. 525-537
    Abstract: “At-own-risk discharges” or “self-discharges” evidences an irretrievable breakdown in the patient–clinician relationship when patients leave care facilities before completion of medical treatment and against medical advice. Dissolution of the therapeutic relationship terminates the physician’s duty of care and professional liability with respect to care of the patient. Acquiescence of an at-own-risk discharge by the clinician is seen as respecting patient autonomy. The validity of such requests pivot on the assumptions that the patient is fully informed and competent to invoke an at-own-risk discharge and that care up to the point of the at-own-risk discharge meets prevailing clinical standards. Palliative care’s use of a multidisciplinary team approach challenges both these assumptions. First by establishing multiple independent therapeutic relations between professionals in the multidisciplinary team and the patient who persists despite an at-own-risk discharge. These enduring therapeutic relationships negate the suggestion that no duty of care is owed the patient. Second, the continued employ of collusion, familial determinations, and the circumnavigation of direct patient involvement in family-centric societies compromises the patient’s decision-making capacity and raises questions as to the patient’s decision-making capacity and their ability to assume responsibility for the repercussions of invoking an at-own-risk discharge. With the validity of at-own-risk discharge request in question and the welfare and patient interest at stake, an alternative approach to assessing at-own-risk discharge requests are called for. The welfare model circumnavigates these concerns and preserves the patient’s welfare through the employ of a multidisciplinary team guided holistic appraisal of the patient’s specific situation that is informed by clinical and institutional standards and evidenced-based practice. The welfare model provides a robust decision-making framework for assessing the validity of at-own-risk discharge requests on a case-by-case basis.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0969-7330 , 1477-0989
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2031461-9
    SSG: 0
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Asian Bioethics Review, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 9, No. 1-2 ( 2017-7), p. 117-128
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1793-8759 , 1793-9453
    Language: English
    Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
    Publication Date: 2017
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2602378-7
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Elsevier BV, Vol. 56, No. 2 ( 2018-08), p. 213-221.e4
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0885-3924
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 1500639-6
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    IBIMA Publishing ; 2014
    In:  JMED Research ( 2014-06-01), p. 1-8
    In: JMED Research, IBIMA Publishing, ( 2014-06-01), p. 1-8
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2333-2395
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: IBIMA Publishing
    Publication Date: 2014
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Academy of Medicine, Singapore ; 2013
    In:  Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore Vol. 42, No. 11 ( 2013-11-15), p. 567-574
    In: Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, Academy of Medicine, Singapore, Vol. 42, No. 11 ( 2013-11-15), p. 567-574
    Abstract: Introduction: Earlier treatment with intravenous stroke thrombolysis improves outcomes and lowers risk of bleeding complications. The decision-making and consent process is one of the rate-limiting steps in the duration between hospital arrival and treatment initiation. We aim to describe the attitudes and practices of neurologists in Singapore on the consent and decision-making processes for stroke thrombolysis. Materials and Methods: A survey of neurologists and neurologists-in-training in 2 large tertiary public hospitals in Singapore was conducted. Results: Among 46 respondents, 94% of them considered stroke thrombolysis an emergency treatment and 67% of them indicated there is a need for written informed consent. The majority (87%) knew that from a legal perspective, the doctor should be the decision-maker in an emergency treatment for a mentally incapacitated patient. However, 63% of respondents reported that it is the next-of-kin who usually makes the decision in actual practice. If confronted with a mentally incapacitated stroke patient, 57% of them were willing to be the proxy decision-maker and 13% of them were not. In 3 commonly encountered vignettes when a mentally incapacitated patient was being considered for stroke thrombolysis, there was no clear consensus on the respondents’ practices. Conclusion: The next-of-kin is usually the decision-maker for stroke thrombolysis in practice for a mentally incapacitated patient despite most doctors considering thrombolysis an emergency treatment. This, together with the lack of consensus and variance in decision-making and consent practice amongst neurologists for stroke thrombolysis, demonstrates the need to develop best practice guidelines to standardise healthcare practices for greater consistency in health service delivery. Key words: Emergency treatment, Mentally incapacitated, Proxy decision-maker
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0304-4602
    Language: English
    Publisher: Academy of Medicine, Singapore
    Publication Date: 2013
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2186627-2
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages