Katrina Hutchison

Challenging the epistemological foundations of EBM: what kind of knowledge does clinical practice require?

This paper raises questions about the epistemological foundations of evidence-based medicine (EBM). We argue that EBM is based upon reliabilist epistemological assumptions, and that this is appropriate - we should focus on identifying the most reliable processes for generating and collecting medical knowledge. However, we note that this should not be reduced to narrow questions about which research methodologies are the best for gathering evidence. Reliable processes for generating medical evidence might lie outside of formal research methods. We also question the notion of the knower that is assumed by EBM. We argue that EBM assumes an enlightenment conception of knowers as autonomous, substitutable individuals. This conception is troubled by the way that clinicians learn the role of anecdote in health care and the role of patient choice, all of which bring into play features of clinicians and patients as situated individuals with particular backgrounds and experiences. EBMs enlightenment conception of the knower is also troubled by aspects of the way evidence is produced. Given these limitations, we argue that EBM should retain its reliabilist bent, but should look beyond formal research methodologies in identifying processes that yield reliable evidence for clinical practice. We suggest looking to feminist epistemology, with its focus on the standpoints of individual situated knowers, and the role of social context in determining what counts as knowledge.

Getting clearer about surgical innovation : a new definition and a new tool to support responsible practice

Objectives: This article presents an original definition of surgical innovation and a practical tool for identifying planned innovations. These will support the responsible introduction of surgical innovations. Background: Frameworks developed for the safer introduction of surgical innovations rely upon identifying cases of innovation; oversight cannot occur unless innovations are identified. However, there is no consensus among surgeons about which interventions they consider innovative; existing definitions are vague and impractical. Methods: Using conceptual analysis, this article synthesizes findings from relevant literature, and from qualitative research with surgeons, to develop an original definition of surgical innovation and a tool for prospectively identifying planned surgical innovations. The tool has been developed in light of feedback from health care professionals, surgeons, and policy makers. Results: This definition of innovation distinguishes between variations, introduction of established interventions, and innovations in surgical techniques or use of devices. It can be applied easily and consistently, is sensitive to the key features of innovation (newness and degree of change), is prospective, and focuses on features relevant to safety and evaluation. The accompanying tool is deliberately broad so that appropriate supports may, if necessary, be provided each time that a surgeon does something “new.” Conclusions: The definition presented in this article overcomes a number of practical challenges. The definition and tool will be of value in supporting responsible surgical innovation, in particular, through the prospective identification of planned innovations.

Strengthening the ethical assessment of placebo-controlled surgical trials: three proposals

BackgroundPlacebo-controlled surgical trials can provide important information about the efficacy of surgical interventions. However, they are ethically contentious as placebo surgery entails the risk of harms to recipients, such as pain, scarring or anaesthetic misadventure. This has led to claims that placebo-controlled surgical trials are inherently unethical. On the other hand, without placebo-controlled surgical trials, it may be impossible to know whether an apparent benefit from surgery is due to the intervention itself or to the placebo effect.DiscussionIn this paper we investigate justifications for placebo-controlled surgical trials and suggest three measures for strengthening their ethical acceptability. We argue that, given the extent, irreversibility and cost of surgical interventions, there is a need for the best possible evidence about their efficacy. In some cases, the strongest evidence will be from placebo-controlled surgical trials, especially where interventions are for outcomes (such as pain) that are likely to elicit a placebo response. In the second part of the paper, we propose three specific measures to increase the ethical acceptability of placebo-controlled surgical trials. The first is structured consultation with the relevant patient community about the risks and benefits of particular placebo-controlled surgical trials. The second seeks to address the therapeutic misconception through the use of educational materials, informed by patient consultation. Finally, we argue for ethical consideration of non-surgeon clinicians who are necessarily involved in the delivery of placebo-surgical interventions.SummaryIf there is no appropriate surgical comparator and the risks can be reduced to the absolute minimum (given the type of placebo procedure required), and the research has the support of the relevant patient community, there may be grounds for judging that the potential benefits of specific placebo-controlled surgical trials outweigh the risks. If so justified, the ethical acceptability of placebo-controlled surgical trials can be enhanced through using educational measures to address participant vulnerability, and by recognizing clinicians who are necessary participants in the research.

Justice and Surgical Innovation: The Case of Robotic Prostatectomy

Surgical innovation promises improvements in healthcare, but it also raises ethical issues including risks of harm to patients, conflicts of interest and increased injustice in access to health care. In this article, we focus on risks of injustice, and use a case study of robotic prostatectomy to identify features of surgical innovation that risk introducing or exacerbating injustices. Interpreting justice as encompassing matters of both efficiency and equity, we first examine questions relating to government decisions about whether to publicly fund access to innovative treatments. Here the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies the difficulty of accommodating healthcare priorities such as improving the health of marginalized groups. It also illustrates challenges with estimating the likely long-term costs and benefits of a new intervention, the difficulty of comparing outcomes of an innovative treatment to those of established treatments, and the further complexity associated with patient and surgeon preferences. Once the decision has been made to fund a new procedure, separate issues of justice arise at the level of providing care to individual patients. Here, the case of robotic prostatectomy exemplifies how features of surgical innovation, such as surgeon learning curves and the need for an adequate volume of cases at a treatment centre, can exacerbate injustices associated with treatment cost and the logistics of travelling for treatment. Drawing on our analysis, we conclude by making a number of recommendations for the just introduction of surgical innovations.

Ethics and the cardiac pacemaker: more than just end-of-life issues

For many years, ethical debate about pacemakers has focused on whether and under what circumstances they may be turned off in end of life care. Several other important ethical issues have been neglected, perhaps because the dilemmas they pose for cardiologists are not so immediate. These include: potential conflicts of interest, particularly those arising from the role of industry employed allied professionals (IEAPs) in pacemaker care; unanticipated impacts of commercial competition and the device improvement cycle; risks associated with remotely accessible software; equity in access to healthcare; and questions about reuse of explanted pacemakers in low and middle income countries. This paper analyses these issues in order to facilitate a more comprehensive approach to ethics and the cardiac pacemaker. Cardiologists should be aware of all of these issues and contribute to ongoing discussions about how they are resolved.

Addressing Deficits and Injustices: The Potential Epistemic Contributions of Patients to Research.

Patient or public involvement (PPI) in health research is increasingly expected as a matter of policy. In theory, PPI can contribute both to the epistemic aims intrinsic to research (generating knowledge), and to extrinsically valued features of research such as social inclusion and transparency. In practice, the aims of PPI have not always been clear, although there has been a tendency to encourage the involvement of so-called ordinary people who are regarded as representative of an assumed patient perspective. In this paper we focus on the epistemic potential of PPI, using theoretical work in epistemology to develop a nuanced account of patients’ experiential knowledge and how this might contribute directly to conceptual development, hypothesis generation and data interpretation. We also consider how some features of health research pose barriers to this kind of epistemic contribution. Drawing on Miranda Fricker’s idea of testimonial injustice, we explore how disciplinary indicators of credibility in clinical and academic health research contexts might be wrongly applied to those involved in PPI, undermining their potential to contribute. Finally we argue for a range of strategies to maximize opportunities for patients to engage with research teams and make epistemologically significant contributions to research.

What Pacemakers Can Teach Us about the Ethics of Maintaining Artificial Organs.

One day soon it may be possible to replace a failing heart, liver, or kidney with a long-lasting mechanical replacement or perhaps even with a 3-D printed version based on the patients own tissue. Such artificial organs could make transplant waiting lists and immunosuppression a thing of the past. Supposing that this happens, what will the ongoing care of people with these implants involve? In particular, how will the need to maintain the functioning of artificial organs over an extended period affect patients and their doctors and the responsibilities of those who manufacture such devices? Drawing on lessons from the history of the cardiac pacemaker, this article offers an initial survey of the ethical issues posed by the need to maintain and service artificial organs. We briefly outline the nature and history of cardiac pacemakers, with a particular focus on the need for technical support, maintenance, and replacement of these devices. Drawing on the existing medical literature and on our conversations and correspondence with cardiologists, regulators, and manufacturers, we describe five sources of ethical issues associated with pacemaker maintenance: the location of the devices inside the human body, such that maintenance generates surgical risks; the complexity of the devices, which increases the risk of harms to patients as well as introducing potential injustices in access to treatment; the role of software-particularly software that can be remotely accessed-in the functioning of the devices, which generates privacy and security issues; the impact of continual development and improvement of the device; and the influence of commercial interests in the context of a medical device market in which there are several competing products. Finally, we offer some initial suggestions as to how these questions should be answered.

They Know How to Work It, That’s Their Focus in Life: The Complex Role of Industry Representatives in Surgical Innovation

Relationships between health care providers and industry can generate conflicts of interest with their attendant harms. However, the types of relationships that involve conflicts of interest have often been understood narrowly as material ones between individual clinicians and industry. In research we undertook with surgical teams, we found the role of industry representatives has become normalized in the context of surgical innovation. In this article, we report the findings of our study and unpack the features of both surgery and innovation which contribute to the scope and normalization of industry involvement. We argue that these relationships generate significant ethical challenges and conclude by commenting on how our conceptualization of the situation might inform change.

Evidence-based medicine in theory and practice: epistemological and normative issues

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) emerged during the 1990s, with the aim of improving clinical practice by increasing the extent to which clinical care was informed by medical research, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs. This chapter gives an account of EBM, followed by examination of epistemological and ethical justifications and critiques of EBM. EBM relies upon epistemological claims about the ability of RCTs to eliminate certain forms of bias and to establish whether or not there is a causal relationship between an intervention and an outcome. However, epistemological critiques of EBM include reservations about whether EBM can “prove” causation, concerns about the rejection of mechanistic models of causation, challenges associated with applying the results of RCTs to individual patients, and lack of evidence regarding whether EBM has in fact benefitted patients and healthcare systems. The ethical justifications for EBM include its promise of better patient outcomes through better informed clinicians and the idea that public health policy based on EBM can support equity and minimize waste of resources. Ethical critiques of EBM note that despite its potential for reducing particular forms of bias, the research upon which EBM is based is often industry funded, creating conflicts of interest that are associated with new sources of bias. These include bias in the conduct of trials, the publication of results, and the choice of interventions for investigation. EBM also poses challenges for patient and clinician autonomy, especially where evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are enforced through targets or audits. In the face of these concerns, EBM is under pressure to reestablish its credibility. The chapter ends by identifying three current initiatives that seek to reinstate the aims of EBM to better inform healthcare decisions.

Device representatives in hospitals: are commercial imperatives driving clinical decision-making?

Despite concerns about the relationships between health professionals and the medical device industry, the issue has received relatively little attention. Prevalence data are lacking; however, qualitative and survey research suggest device industry representatives, who are commonly present in clinical settings, play a key role in these relationships. Representatives, who are technical product specialists and not necessarily medically trained, may attend surgeries on a daily basis and be available to health professionals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to provide advice. However, device representatives have a dual role: functioning as commissioned sales representatives at the same time as providing advice on approaches to treatment. This duality raises the concern that clinical decision-making may be unduly influenced by commercial imperatives. In this paper, we identify three key ethical concerns raised by the relationship between device representatives and health professionals: (1) impacts on healthcare costs, (2) the outsourcing of expertise and (3) issues of accountability and informed consent. These ethical concerns can be addressed in part through clarifying the boundary between the support and sales aspects of the roles of device representatives and developing clear guidelines for device representatives providing support in clinical spaces. We suggest several policy options including hospital provision of expert support, formalising clinician conduct to eschew receipt of meals and payments from industry and establishing device registries.