Rosalind McDougall

Acting parentally: an argument against sex selection

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s (HFEA) recent restrictive recommendations on sex selection have highlighted the need for consideration of the plausibility of ethical arguments against sex selection. In this paper, the author suggests a parental virtues approach to some questions of reproductive ethics (including sex selection) as a superior alternative to an exclusively harm focused approach such as the procreative liberty framework. The author formulates a virtue ethics argument against sex selection based on the idea that acceptance is a character trait of the good parent. It is concluded that, because the argument presented posits a wrong in the sex selecting agent’s action that is not a harm, the argument could not function as a justification of the HFEA’s restrictive position in light of their explicit commitment to procreative liberty; it does, however, suggest that ethical approaches focused exclusively on harm fail to capture all the relevant moral considerations and thus that we should look beyond such approaches.

Overriding parents’ medical decisions for their children: a systematic review of normative literature

This paper reviews the ethical literature on conflicts between health professionals and parents about medical decision-making for children. We present the results of a systematic review which addressed the question ‘when health professionals and parents disagree about the appropriate course of medical treatment for a child, under what circumstances is the health professional ethically justified in overriding the parents’ wishes?’ We identified nine different ethical frameworks that were put forward by their authors as applicable across various ages and clinical scenarios. Each of these frameworks centred on a different key moral concept including harm, constrained parental autonomy, best interests, medically reasonable alternatives, responsible thinking and rationality.

Developing "ethical mindfulness" in continuing professional development in healthcare: use of a personal narrative approach.

Continuing professional development (CPD) and life-long learning are now widely accepted goals of healthcare professions. Although this is perhaps more apparent in the medical profession, most other healthcare professions are in widespread agreement that in order to fulfill their professional requirements, healthcare professionals need to adopt a practice of life-long learning. Continuing professional development is seen as important for a number of reasons. One reason is that the continuing advances in biomedical science and technology mean that new drugs, devices, and procedures are constantly being introduced into healthcare practice, requiring ongoing acquisition of new content knowledge. A second reason for CPD is in response to the recognition that healthcare professionals do not emerge from their initial training with the skills they need for practice already fully mastered. Learning of skills, such as communication with patients, families, and other professionals, is an on-going process.

Systematic Reviews in Bioethics: Types, Challenges, and Value

There has recently been interest in applying the techniques of systematic review to bioethics literature. In this paper, I identify the three models of systematic review proposed to date in bioethics: systematic reviews of empirical bioethics research, systematic reviews of normative bioethics literature, and systematic reviews of reasons. I argue that all three types yield information useful to scholarship in bioethics, yet they also face significant challenges particularly in relation to terminology and time. Drawing on my recent experience conducting a systematic review, I suggest that complete comprehensiveness may not always be an appropriate goal of a literature review in bioethics, depending on the research question. In some cases, all the relevant ideas may be captured without capturing all the relevant literature. I conclude that systematic reviews in bioethics have an important role to play alongside the traditional broadbrush approach to reviewing literature in bioethics.

Combating junior doctors’ “4am logic”: a challenge for medical ethics education

Undergraduate medical ethics education currently focuses on ethical concepts and reasoning. This paper uses an intern’s story of an ethically challenging situation to argue that this emphasis is problematic in terms of ensuring students’ ethical practice as junior doctors. The story suggests that it is aligning their actions with the values that they reflectively embrace that can present difficulties for junior doctors working in the pressures of the hospital environment, rather than reasoning to an ethically appropriate action. I argue that junior doctors need skills for implementing their ethical decisions and that these ought to form a central component of undergraduate medical ethics education.

Reviewing Literature in Bioethics Research: Increasing Rigour in Non‐Systematic Reviews

The recent interest in systematic review methods in bioethics has highlighted the need for greater transparency in all literature review processes undertaken in bioethics projects. In this article, I articulate features of a good bioethics literature review that does not aim to be systematic, but rather to capture and analyse the key ideas relevant to a research question. I call this a critical interpretive literature review. I begin by sketching and comparing three different types of literature review conducted in bioethics scholarship. Then, drawing on Dixon-Woods concept of critical interpretive synthesis, I put forward six features of a good critical interpretive literature review in bioethics: answering a research question, capturing the key ideas relevant to the research question, analysing the literature as a whole, generating theory, not excluding papers based on rigid quality assessment criteria, and reporting the search strategy.

The junior doctor as ethically unique

This paper argues that the professional situation of junior doctors is unique in ethically important ways and thus that ethics work focusing on junior doctors specifically is necessary. Unlike the medical student or the more senior doctor, the doctor in his or her early postgraduate years is simultaneously a responsible health professional, a subjugate learner and a human resource. These multiple roles generate the set of ethical issues faced by junior doctors, a set that has some overlaps with that faced by medical students and with that faced by more experienced doctors but is far from completely continuous with either. Further, the multiple roles that junior doctors play affect their options for negotiating the ethical challenges that they face. Their position determines not only the content of the set of ethical issues that they encounter, but also the kinds of actions they can take in the face of these challenges. Thus considering junior doctors only in combination with medical students or more senior doctors fails on two fronts. Firstly, only a very incomplete set of the ethical issues faced by junior doctors will be addressed, and, secondly, the constraints associated with the specific professional situation of junior doctors will not be adequately considered, limiting the practical applicability for these agents of any such analyses.

Conflicts Between Parents and Health Professionals About a Child's Medical Treatment: Using Clinical Ethics Records to Find Gaps in the Bioethics Literature.

Clinical ethics records offer bioethics researchers a rich source of cases that clinicians have identified as ethically complex. In this paper, we suggest that clinical ethics records can be used to point to types of cases that lack attention in the current bioethics literature, identifying new areas in need of more detailed bioethical work. We conducted an analysis of the clinical ethics records of one paediatric hospital in Australia, focusing specifically on conflicts between parents and health professionals about a child’s medical treatment. We identified, analysed, and compared cases of this type from the clinical ethics records with cases of this type discussed in bioethics journals. While the cases from journals tended to describe situations involving imminent risk to the child’s life, a significant proportion of the clinical ethics records cases involved different stakes for the child involved. These included distress, poorer functional outcome, poorer psychosocial outcome, or increased risk of surgical complications. Our analysis suggests that one type of case that warrants more detailed ethics research is parental refusal of recommended treatment, where the refusal does not endanger the child’s life but rather some other aspect of the child’s well-being.

The Ethics of Fertility Preservation for Paediatric Cancer Patients: From Offer to Rebuttable Presumption

Given advances in the science of fertility preservation and the link between fertility choices and wellbeing, it is time to reframe our ethical thinking around fertility preservation procedures for children and young people with cancer. The current framing of fertility preservation as a possible offer may no longer be universally appropriate. There is an increasingly pressing need to discuss the ethics of failing to preserve fertility, particularly for patient groups for whom established techniques exist. I argue that the starting point for deliberating about a particular patient should be a rebuttable presumption that fertility preservation ought to be attempted. Consideration of the harms applicable to that specific patient may then override this presumption. I outline the benefits of attempting fertility preservation; these justify a presumption in favour of the treatment. I then discuss the potential harms associated with fertility preservation procedures, which may justify failing to attempt fertility preservation in an individual patients particular case. Moving from a framework of offer to one of rebuttable presumption in favour of fertility preservation would have significant implications for medical practice, healthcare organizations and the state.

Indeterminacy and the normative basis of the harm threshold for overriding parental decisions: a response to Birchley

Birchleys critique of the harm threshold for overriding parental decisions is successful in demonstrating that the harm threshold, like the best interests standard, suffers from the problem of indeterminacy. However, his focus on critiquing empirical rather than normative arguments for the harm threshold means that his broad conclusion that it is ‘ill-judged’ is not justified. Advocates of the harm threshold can accept that the concept of harm to a child is indeterminate, yet still invoke strong normative arguments for this way of responding to parental decisions that conflict with medical recommendations. I suggest that Birchleys discussion, rather than showing that the harm threshold is mistaken, instead highlights the importance of developing a comprehensive account of childrens interests, for proponents of a best interests approach and for advocates of the harm threshold.