<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com">
<title>Journal of Medical Ethics current issue</title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com</link>
<description>Journal of Medical Ethics RSS feed -- current issue</description>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>Sep  1 2008 12:00:00:000AM</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Journal of Medical Ethics</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0306-6800</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/319?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/320?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/324?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/325?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/327?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/332?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/336?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/341?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/344?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/348?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/353?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/357?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/361?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/365?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/370?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/375?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/379?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/384?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/389?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/393?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/396?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/399?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/407?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/414?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
<image rdf:resource="http://jme.bmj.com/homepage/JME_95x60.gif" />
</channel>

<image rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/homepage/JME_95x60.gif">
<title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title>
<url>http://jme.bmj.com/homepage/JME_95x60.gif</url>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com</link>
</image>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/319?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Editorial] Should we force the obese to diet?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/319?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Giordano, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.023598</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Editorial] Should we force the obese to diet?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>319</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>319</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorial</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/320?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Clinical ethicists' perspectives on organisational ethics in healthcare organisations]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/320?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background:</st>
<p>Demand for organisational ethics capacity is growing in health organisations, particularly among managers. The role of clinical ethicists in, and perspective on, organisational ethics has not been well described or documented in the literature.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective:</st>
<p>To describe clinical ethicists&rsquo; perspectives on organisational ethics issues in their hospitals, their institutional role in relation to organisational ethics, and their perceived effectiveness in helping to address organisational ethics issues.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Design and Setting:</st>
<p>Qualitative case study involving semi-structured interviews with 18 clinical ethicists across 13 health organisations in Toronto, Canada.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>From the clinical ethicists&rsquo; perspective, the most pressing organisational ethics issues in their organisations are: resource allocation, staff moral distress linked to the organisation&rsquo;s moral climate, conflicts of interest, and clinical issues with a significant organisational dimension. Clinical ethicists were consulted in particular on issues related to staff moral distress and clinical issues with an organisational dimension. Some ethicists described being increasingly consulted on resource allocation, conflicts of interest, and other corporate decisions. Many clinical ethicists felt they lacked sufficient knowledge and understanding of organisational decision-making processes, training in organisational ethics, and access to organisational ethics tools to deal effectively with the increasing demand for organisational ethics support.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>
<p>Growing demand for organisational ethics expertise in healthcare institutions is reshaping the role of clinical ethicists. Effectiveness in organisational ethics entails a re-evaluation of clinical ethics training to include capacity building in organisational ethics and organisational decision-making processes as a complement to traditional clinical ethics education.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Silva, D S, Gibson, J L, Sibbald, R, Connolly, E, Singer, P A]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020891</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Clinical ethicists' perspectives on organisational ethics in healthcare organisations]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>323</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>320</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/324?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Mexican heroism]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/324?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tomassi, M P]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020495</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Mexican heroism]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>324</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>324</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/325?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Is truth a supreme value?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/325?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Is truth a supreme value? At times, we doctors have to contend with a complex dilemma in which we face the value of truth on the one hand and conflict with another value on the other. Is it sometimes permissible and even necessary not to report the truth in favour of another, more important value? This is a description of an experience in which a doctor had to handle such an issue when a pregnant Muslim woman asked for a document that she wasn&rsquo;t pregnant when in fact she was, in order to avert the possibility of being murdered to preserve the honour of the family. The doctor decided that the value of life was more important than the value of truth.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peleg, R]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.022384</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Is truth a supreme value?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>326</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>325</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/327?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The potential impact of decision role and patient age on end-of-life treatment decision making]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/327?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background:</st>
<p>Recent research demonstrates that people sometimes make different medical decisions for others than they would make for themselves. This finding is particularly relevant to end-of-life decisions, which are often made by surrogates and require a trade-off between prolonging life and maintaining quality of life. We examine the impact of decision role, patient age, decision maker age and multiple individual differences on these treatment decisions.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods:</st>
<p>Participants read a scenario about a terminally ill cancer patient faced with a choice between an aggressive chemotherapy regimen that will extend life by two years and palliative treatments to control discomfort for one remaining month. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three decision roles (patient, physician, or an abstract other) and the scenario randomly varied whether the patient was described as 25 or 65-years old.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>When deciding for a 65-year old patient, approximately 60% of participants selected aggressive chemotherapy regardless of decision role. When deciding for a 25-year old patient, however, participants were more likely to select chemotherapy for a patient (physician role) or another person (abstract other) than for themselves (70%, 67%, and 59%, respectively). In addition, confidence that powerful others (eg, physicians) control one&rsquo;s health, as well as respondents&rsquo; age and race, consistently predicted treatment choices.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>
<p>Patient age appears to influence medical decisions made for others but not those that we make for ourselves. These findings may help to explain the discord that often occurs when younger cancer patients refuse life-extending treatments.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Zikmund-Fisher, B J, Lacey, H P, Fagerlin, A]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021279</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The potential impact of decision role and patient age on end-of-life treatment decision making]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>331</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>327</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/332?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Clinical prioritisations of healthcare for the aged--professional roles]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/332?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background:</st>
<p>Although fair distribution of healthcare services for older patients is an important challenge, qualitative research exploring clinicians&rsquo; considerations in clinical prioritisation within this field is scarce.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objectives:</st>
<p>To explore how clinicians understand their professional role in clinical prioritisations in healthcare services for old patients.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Design:</st>
<p>A semi-structured interview-guide was employed to interview 45 clinicians working with older patients. The interviews were analysed qualitatively using hermeneutical content analysis.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Participants:</st>
<p>20 physicians and 25 nurses working in public hospitals and nursing homes in different parts of Norway.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results and interpretations:</st>
<p>The clinicians struggle with not being able to attend to the comprehensive needs of older patients, and being unfaithful to professional ideals and expectations. There is a tendency towards lowering the standards and narrowing the role of the clinician. This is done in order to secure the vital needs of the patient, but is at the expense of good practice and holistic role modelling. Increased specialisation, advances and increase in medical interventions, economical incentives, organisational structures, and biomedical paradigms, may all contribute to a narrowing of the clinicians&rsquo; role.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>
<p>Distributing healthcare services in a fair way is generally not described as integral to the clinicians&rsquo; role in clinical prioritisations. If considerations of justice are not included in clinicians&rsquo; role, it is likely that others will shape major parts of their roles and responsibilities in clinical prioritisations. Fair distribution of healthcare services for older patients is possible only if clinicians accept responsibility in these questions.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nortvedt, P, Pedersen, R, Grothe, K H, Nordhaug, M, Kirkevold, M, Slettebo, A, Brinchmann, B S, Andersen, B]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020693</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Clinical prioritisations of healthcare for the aged--professional roles]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>335</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>332</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/336?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The practicalities of terminally ill patients signing their own DNR orders--a study in Taiwan]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/336?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives:</st>
<p>To investigate the current situation of completing the informed consent for do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders among the competent patients with terminal illness and the ethical dilemmas related to it.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Participants:</st>
<p>This study enrolled 152 competent patients with terminal cancer, who were involved in the initial consultations for hospice care.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Analysis:</st>
<p>Comparisons of means, analyses of variance, Student&rsquo;s t test, <sup>2</sup> test and multiple logistic regression models.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>After the consultations, 117 (77.0%) of the 152 patients provided informed consent for hospice care and DNR orders. These included 21 patients (17.9%) who signed the consent by themselves, and 96 (82.1%) whose consent sheet was signed only by family members. The reasons why patients were not involved in the discussions toward the consent (n = 82) included poor physical or psychological condition (44.9%), concerns of the consultant hospice team (37.2%), and the family&rsquo;s refusal (28.2%). On a multivariate analysis, patients&rsquo; awareness of their poor prognosis (odds ratio = 4.07, 95% confidence interval = 2.05 to 8.07) and their understanding of hospice care (2.27, 1.33 to 3.89) were two independent factors (p&lt;0.01) that influenced their participation in the discussions or their personal signature in the informed consent.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>
<p>The family-oriented culture in Asian countries may violate the principles of the Patient Self-Determination Act and the requirements of the Hospice Care Law in Taiwan, which inevitably poses an ethical dilemma. Earlier truth-telling and continuing education of the public by hospice care workers will be helpful in solving such ethical dilemmas.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Huang, C-H, Hu, W-Y, Chiu, T-Y, Chen, C-Y]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020735</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The practicalities of terminally ill patients signing their own DNR orders--a study in Taiwan]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>340</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>336</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/341?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The Ashley treatment: a step too far, or not far enough?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/341?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This "current controversies" contribution describes the recent case of a severely disabled six year old girl who has been subjected to a range of medical interventions at the request of her parents and with the permission of a hospital clinical ethics committee. The interventions prescribed have become known as "the Ashley treatment" and involve the performance of invasive medical procedures (eg, hysterectomy) and oestrogen treatment. A central aim of the treatment is to restrict the growth of the child and thus make it easier for her parents to care for her at home. The paper below discusses the main objections to the treatment. It concludes that the most serious concern raised by the case is that it may set a worrying precedent if the moral principle employed in justification of the treatment is applied again to endorse it in similar circumstances. Finally, it raises the possibility that that same moral principle may even be invoked to justify more radical interventions than those that were actually performed in the Ashley treatment.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Edwards, S D]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020743</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The Ashley treatment: a step too far, or not far enough?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>343</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>341</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/344?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] An assessment of the process of informed consent at the University Hospital of the West Indies]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/344?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective:</st>
<p>To assess the adequacy of the process of informed consent for surgical patients at the University Hospital of the West Indies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method:</st>
<p>The study is a prospective, cross-sectional, descriptive study. 210 patients at the University Hospital of the West Indies were interviewed using a standardised investigator-administered questionnaire, developed by the authors, after obtaining witnessed, informed consent for participation in the study. Data were analysed using SPSS V.12 for Windows.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>Of the patients, 39.4% were male. Of the surgical procedures, 68.6% were scheduled, 7.6% urgent and 23.8% emergency, 35.2% were minor and 64.8% major. Information imparted/received was acceptable in 40% of cases, good in 24% and inadequate (unacceptable) in 36% of cases. Almost all (97.6%) patients stated that they understood why an operation was planned and 93.3% thought that they had given informed consent. Most (95.2%) thought that they had free choice and made up their own mind. A quarter (25.2%) of all patients were told that it was mandatory for them to sign the form. There was a discussion of possible side effects and complications in 56.7% of patients.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>
<p>This study clearly indicates that surgical patients at the University Hospital of the West Indies feel that they have given informed consent. However, it also suggests that more information should be given to patients for consent to be truly informed.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barnett, A T, Crandon, I, Lindo, J F, Gordon-Strachan, G, Robinson, D, Ranglin, D]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020388</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] An assessment of the process of informed consent at the University Hospital of the West Indies]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>347</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>344</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/348?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Patients' preferences for receiving clinical information and participating in decision-making in Iran]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/348?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Introduction:</st>
<p>This study, the first of its kind in Iran, was to assess Iranian patients&rsquo; preferences for receiving information and participating in decision-making and to evaluate their satisfaction with how medical information is given to them and with their participation in decision-making at present.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Method and materials:</st>
<p>299 of 312 eligible patients admitted to general internal medicine or surgery wards from May to December 2006 were interviewed according to a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about patients&rsquo; preferences regarding four domains of information and their participation in decision-making. Patients&rsquo; responses were measured on a visual analogue scale graded from 1 to 10.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>The mean (SD) score for desire to receive information was 8.88 out of 10 (1.5) and for participation in medical decision-making was 7.75 out of 10 (3). The desire to receive information was greater in women than men (9.0 (1.5) vs 7.8 (1.4), p = 0.025). It was also correlated with their education (r = 0.2, p = 0.001) and their estimation of the severity of their own disease (r = 0.13, p = 0.027). The score for preference to participate in decision-making was higher in women than in men (7.95 (2.8) and 7.0 (3.2), respectively; &beta; = 0.8, p = 0.022) and was negatively correlated with education (r = &ndash;0.14, p = 0.015).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Discussion:</st>
<p>This study shows that Iranian patients are highly interested in receiving information about their condition and participating in clinical decision-making. No predictive variable for such attitudes was found; therefore, the only way for the physician to recognise patients&rsquo; desire is to ask them explicitly.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Asghari, F, Mirzazadeh, A, Fotouhi, A]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021873</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] Patients' preferences for receiving clinical information and participating in decision-making in Iran]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>352</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>348</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/353?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] To what extent should older patients be included in decisions regarding their resuscitation status?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/353?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>As medical technology continues to advance and we develop the expertise to keep people alive in states undreamt of even 20 years ago, there is increasing interest in the ethics of providing, or declining to provide, life-sustaining treatment. One such issue, highly contentious in clinical practice as well as in the media (and, through them, the public), is the use of do-not-attempt-resuscitation orders. The main group of patients affected by these orders is older people. This article explores some of the arguments regarding who should make the decision to implement such an order, with particular reference to older people and the unique issues they face in relation to resuscitation. The author concludes by arguing that official guidelines, while representing an ideal, are not easily applied in a typical acute setting where decisions regarding resuscitation are most commonly made, and makes suggestions as to how they may be implemented more successfully.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wilson, J]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.022681</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] To what extent should older patients be included in decisions regarding their resuscitation status?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>356</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>353</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/357?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The quality of bioethics debate: implications for clinical ethics committees]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/357?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Bioethicists have recently expressed concern over a lack of quality control within the field. This apprehension focuses on bioethics expanding in ways that obscure its distinctive ethical remit and the specialist reasoning skills it requires. This thesis about the quality and conduct of bioethics may have particular relevance for clinical ethics. As one of the youngest offshoots of bioethics, the field focuses on the ethical issues that arise specifically in a clinical context. However, non-ethics specialists are increasingly involved in this field. This means that clinical ethics could be especially vulnerable to the quality control concerns articulated within bioethics. The growing public profile of clinical ethics means that concerns over quality in this area warrant specific attention by those concerned with declining standards in bioethics and those working in clinical ethics.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Williamson, L]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021634</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Clinical ethics] The quality of bioethics debate: implications for clinical ethics committees]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>360</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>357</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Clinical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/361?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Ethics] Genomics and equal opportunity ethics]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/361?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Genomics provides information on genetic susceptibility to diseases and new possibilities for interventions which can fundamentally alter the design of fair health policies. The aim of this paper is to explore implications of genomics from the perspective of equal opportunity ethics. The ideal of equal opportunity requires that individuals are held responsible for some, but not all, factors that affect their health. Informational problems, however, often make it difficult to implement the ideal of equal opportunity in the context of healthcare. In this paper, examples are considered of how new genetic information may affect the way individual responsibility for choice is assigned. It is also argued that genomics may result in relocation of the responsibility cut by providing both new information and new technology. Finally, how genomics may affect healthcare policies and the market for health insurance is discussed.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cappelen, A W, Norheim, O F, Tungodden, B]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021162</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Ethics] Genomics and equal opportunity ethics]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>364</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>361</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/365?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Ethics] The perceived role of Islam in immigrant Muslim medical practice within the USA: an exploratory qualitative study]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/365?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background:</st>
<p>Islam and Muslims are underrepresented in the medical literature and the influence of physician&rsquo;s cultural beliefs and religious values upon the clinical encounter has been understudied.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Objective:</st>
<p>To elicit the perceived influence of Islam upon the practice patterns of immigrant Muslim physicians in the USA.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Design:</st>
<p>Ten face-to-face, in-depth, semistructured interviews with Muslim physicians from various backgrounds and specialties trained outside the USA and practising within the the country. Data were analysed according to the conventions of qualitative research using a modified grounded-theory approach.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>There were a variety of views on the role of Islam in medical practice. Several themes emerged from our interviews: (1) a trend to view Islam as enhancing virtuous professional behaviour; (2) the perception of Islam as influencing the scope of medical practice through setting boundaries on career choices, defining acceptable medical procedures and shaping social interactions with physician peers; (3) a perceived need for Islamic religious experts within Islamic medical ethical deliberation.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Limitations:</st>
<p>This is a pilot study intended to yield themes and hypotheses for further investigation and is not meant to fully characterise Muslim physicians at large.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>
<p>Immigrant Muslim physicians practising within the USA perceive Islam to play a variable role within their clinical practice, from influencing interpersonal relations and character development to affecting specialty choice and procedures performed. Areas of ethical challenges identified include catering to populations with lifestyles at odds with Islamic teachings, end-of-life care and maintaining a faith identity within the culture of medicine. Further study of the interplay between Islam and Muslim medical practice and the manner and degree to which Islamic values and law inform ethical decision-making is needed.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Padela, A I, Shanawani, H, Greenlaw, J, Hamid, H, Aktas, M, Chin, N]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021345</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Ethics] The perceived role of Islam in immigrant Muslim medical practice within the USA: an exploratory qualitative study]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>369</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>365</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/370?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Genetics] Minors and informed consent in carrier testing: a survey of European clinical geneticists]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/370?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Purpose:</st>
<p>A study was made of attitudes of clinical geneticists regarding the age at which minors should be allowed to undergo a carrier test and the reasons they provide to explain their answer.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods:</st>
<p>European clinical institutions where genetic counselling is offered to patients were contacted. 177 (63%) of the 287 eligible respondents answered a questionnaire.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>Clinical geneticists were significantly more in favour of providing a carrier test to a younger person if the request was made together with the parents than if the adolescent requested the test personally. Although a large fraction of respondents (16%&ndash;30%) were "neither unwilling nor willing" to provide a carrier test to a 16-year-old adolescent who requested the test personally, for most disorders slightly more clinical geneticists were "very willing" or "willing".</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>
<p>Age is not the only decisive element when considering the participation of adolescents in decisions affecting their health. The clinical geneticists referred to cognitive, emotional and sexual maturity and the support of parents as crucial elements in their comments regarding when to tell children about their genetic risk or to allow adolescents to request a carrier test.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Borry, P, Stultiens, L, Goffin, T, Nys, H, Dierickx, K]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021717</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Genetics] Minors and informed consent in carrier testing: a survey of European clinical geneticists]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>374</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>370</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Genetics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/375?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Global medical ethics] The medical student global health experience: professionalism and ethical implications]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/375?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Medical student and resident participation in global health experiences (GHEs) has significantly increased over the last decade. In response to growing student interest and the proven impact of such experiences on the education and career decisions of resident physicians, many medical schools have begun to establish programmes dedicated to global health education. For the innumerable benefits of GHEs, it is important to note that medical students have the potential to do more harm than good in these settings when they exceed their actual capabilities as physicians-in-training. While medical training programmes are beginning to provide students with the knowledge to put their GHEs in context, they must remember that they also bear the responsibility of training their students in a framework to approach these experiences in a principled and professional way. It is necessary that these institutions provide adequate and formalised preparation for both clinical <I>and</I> ethical challenges of working in resource-poor settings. This paper outlines potential benefits and risks of GHEs and delineates recommendations to some of the current issues.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shah, S, Wu, T]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2006.019265</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Global medical ethics] The medical student global health experience: professionalism and ethical implications]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>378</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>375</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Global medical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/379?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Global medical ethics] Human rights and bioethics]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/379?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>In the first part of this article we survey the concept of human rights from a philosophical perspective and especially in relation to the "right to healthcare". It is argued that regardless of meta-ethical debates on the nature of rights, the ethos and language of moral deliberation associated with human rights is indispensable to any ethics that places the victim and the sufferer in its centre.</p>
<p>In the second part we discuss the rise of the "right to privacy", particularly in the USA, as an attempt to make the element of personal free will dominate over the element of basic human interest within the structure of rights and when different rights seem to conflict.</p>
<p>We conclude by discussing the relationship of human rights with moral values beyond the realm of rights, mainly human dignity, free will, human rationality and response to basic human needs.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barilan, Y M, Brusa, M]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020859</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Global medical ethics] Human rights and bioethics]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>383</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>379</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Global medical ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/384?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Law, ethics and medicine] The views of cancer patients on patient rights in the context of information and autonomy]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/384?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objectives:</st>
<p>The aim of this study is to evaluate the views of cancer patients on patient rights in the context of the right to information and autonomy according to articles related to the issue in the "Patient Rights Regulation".</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods:</st>
<p>The research was conducted among cancer patients in the medical oncology department of a research and practice hospital using a random sampling method between June and September 2005. Data were collected during face-to-face interviews using a questionnaire.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>There was a high rate of positive response to the items that the patients have the right to be informed (86.5%), that the physician should inform the patient on the diagnosis and the treatment (92.3%) and that the physician is obliged to inform the patient (76.9%). Only 43.3% of the patients stated that the patient has the right to refuse the treatment recommended by the physician. The participants mostly agreed that the patient should participate in decisions about the treatment and that patient consent should be given (78.8%).</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>
<p>There are extensive efforts in Turkey towards making patient rights a significant supportive component of health services. For patient rights to become a natural part of medical practice it is necessary to give priority to education of both patients and physicians about patient rights and to lay emphasis on an ethical approach in the patient&ndash;physician relationship.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Erer, S, Atici, E, Erdemir, A D]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020750</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Law, ethics and medicine] The views of cancer patients on patient rights in the context of information and autonomy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>388</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>384</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Law, ethics and medicine</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/389?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Research ethics] Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/389?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Payment for research participation has raised ethical concerns, especially with respect to its potential for coercion. We argue that characterising payment for research participation as coercive is misguided, because offers of benefit cannot constitute coercion. In this article we analyse the concept of coercion, refute mistaken conceptions of coercion and explain why the offer of payment for research participation is never coercive but in some cases may produce undue inducement.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wertheimer, A, Miller, F G]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021857</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Research ethics] Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>392</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>389</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/393?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Research ethics] Status of healthcare studies submitted to UK research ethics committees for approval in 2004-5]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/393?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Background:</st>
<p>In view of the increasing complexity of research ethics committee (REC) applications and thus the time and expense involved in completing the forms, continual monitoring of outcome of clinical research studies for which ethics applications have been submitted is essential in determining whether resources are being effectively used, or alternatively whether significant numbers of research proposals are abandoned because of lack of funding or manpower. Previously published surveys for which data are available examined outcome of studies receiving REC approval 10 or more years ago.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods:</st>
<p>A prospective questionnaire-based survey sent out in July 2006 to all 506 principal investigators who submitted research ethics applications to nine Greater Manchester RECs between April 2004 and March 2005. Data on the outcome of REC applications, and the status of the research study were collected and analysed.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Results:</st>
<p>288 of the 506 (57%) questionnaires were returned. 97% of REC applications were approved, and 87% of studies were in progress or had been completed 1&ndash;2 years after approval had been granted. Researchers employed by universities (51%), healthcare (43%) and the pharmaceutical industry (6%) had similar rates of success in initiating research studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusions:</st>
<p>This survey suggests that most research studies submitted to RECs in Manchester, UK are approved and initiated.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arshad, A, Arkwright, P D]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.020545</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Research ethics] Status of healthcare studies submitted to UK research ethics committees for approval in 2004-5]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>395</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>393</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/396?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Teaching and learning ethics] The religious beliefs of students and the teaching of medical ethics: a comment on Brassington]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/396?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>It has recently been suggested by Brassington that, when students in classes in medical ethics announce that some view that they wish to express is related to their religious convictions, the teacher is obliged to question them explicitly about the suggested link. Here, a different conclusion is reached. The view is upheld that, although the stratagem recommended by Brassington is permissible and might sometimes be desirable, it is not obligatory nor is it, in general, likely to be optimal.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[McLachlan, H V]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021121</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Teaching and learning ethics] The religious beliefs of students and the teaching of medical ethics: a comment on Brassington]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>398</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>396</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Teaching and learning ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/399?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Teaching and learning ethics] Learning a way through ethical problems: Swedish nurses' and doctors' experiences from one model of ethics rounds]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/399?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective:</st>
<p>To evaluate one ethics rounds model by describing nurses&rsquo; and doctors&rsquo; experiences of the rounds.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods:</st>
<p>Philosopher-ethicist-led interprofessional team ethics rounds concerning dialysis patient care problems were applied at three Swedish hospitals. The philosophers were instructed to promote mutual understanding and stimulate ethical reflection, without giving any recommendations or solutions. Interviews with seven doctors and 11 nurses were conducted regarding their experiences from the rounds, which were then analysed using content analysis.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Findings:</st>
<p>The goal of the rounds was partly fulfilled. Participants described both positive and negative experiences. Good rounds included stimulation to broadened thinking, a sense of connecting, strengthened confidence to act, insight into moral responsibility and emotional relief. Negative experiences were associated with a sense of unconcern and alienation, as well as frustration with the lack of solutions and a sense of resignation that change is not possible. The findings suggest that the ethics rounds above all met the need of a forum for crossing over professional boundaries. The philosophers seemed to play an important role in structuring and stimulating reasoned arguments. The nurses&rsquo; expectation that solutions to the ethical problems would be sought despite explicit instructions to the contrary was conspicuous.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>
<p>When assisting healthcare professionals to learn a way through ethical problems in patient care, a balance should be found between ethical analyses, conflict resolution and problem solving. A model based on the findings is presented.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Svantesson, M, Lofmark, R, Thorsen, H, Kallenberg, K, Ahlstrom, G]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2006.019810</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Teaching and learning ethics] Learning a way through ethical problems: Swedish nurses' and doctors' experiences from one model of ethics rounds]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>406</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>399</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Teaching and learning ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/407?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[Teaching and learning ethics] Interprofessional ethics rounds concerning dialysis patients: staff's ethical reflections before and after rounds]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/407?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<sec><st>Objective:</st>
<p>To evaluate whether ethics rounds stimulated ethical reflection.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Methods:</st>
<p>Philosopher-ethicist-led interprofessional team ethics rounds concerning dialysis patient care problems were applied at three Swedish hospitals. The philosophers were instructed to stimulate ethical reflection and promote mutual understanding between professions but not to offer solutions. Questionnaires directly before and after rounds were answered by 194 respondents. The analyses were primarily content analysis with Boyd&rsquo;s framework but were also statistical in nature.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Findings:</st>
<p>Seventy-six per cent of the respondents reported a moderate to high rating regarding new insights on ethical problem identification, but the ethics rounds did not seem to stimulate the ethical reflection that the respondents had expected (p&lt;0.001). Dominant new insights did not seem to fit into traditional normative ethics but were instead interpreted as hermeneutic ethics. This was illustrated in the extended perspective on the patient and increased awareness of relations to other professions. Regarding insights into how to solve ethical problems, the request for further interprofessional dialogue dominated both before and after rounds.</p>
</sec>
<sec><st>Conclusion:</st>
<p>The findings show the need for interprofessional reflective ethical practice but a balance between ethical reflection and problem solving is suggested if known patients are discussed. Further research is needed to explore the most effective leadership for reflective ethical practice.</p>
</sec>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Svantesson, M, Anderzen-Carlsson, A, Thorsen, H, Kallenberg, K, Ahlstrom, G]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.023572</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[Teaching and learning ethics] Interprofessional ethics rounds concerning dialysis patients: staff's ethical reflections before and after rounds]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>413</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>407</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Teaching and learning ethics</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/414?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[[PostScript] Should fertility doctors and clinical embryologists be involved in the recruitment, counselling and reimbursement of egg donors?]]></title>
<link>http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/34/5/414?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Heng, B C]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1136/jme.2007.021733</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[[PostScript] Should fertility doctors and clinical embryologists be involved in the recruitment, counselling and reimbursement of egg donors?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>Institute of Medical Ethics</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>5</prism:number>
<prism:volume>34</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>414</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2008-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>414</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>PostScript</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>