Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an independent medical humanitarian organisation working in over 70 countries. It has provided medical assistance for over 35 years to populations vulnerable through conflict, disease and inadequate health systems. Medical ethics define the starting point of the relationship between medical staff and patients. The ethics of humanitarian interventions and of research in conflict settings are much debated. However, less is known about the ethical dilemmas faced by medical humanitarian staff in their daily work. Ethical dilemmas can be intensified in humanitarian contexts by insecure environments, lack of optimum care, language barriers, potentially heightened power discrepancies between care providers and patients, differing cultural values and perceptions of patients, communities and medical staff. Time constraints, stressful conditions and lack of familiarity with ethical frameworks can prevent reflection on these dilemmas, as can frustration that such reflection does not necessarily provide instant solutions. Lack of reflection, however, can be distressing for medical practitioners and can reduce the quality of care. Ethical reflection has a central role in MSF, and the organisation uses ethical frameworks to help with clinical and programmatic decisions as well as in deliberations over operational research. We illustrate and discuss some real ethical dilemmas facing MSF teams. Only by sharing and seeking guidance can MSF and similar actors make more thoughtful and appropriate decisions. Our aim in sharing these cases is to invite discussion and dialogue in the wider medical community working in crisis, conflict or with severe resource limitations.
- International affairs
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Thirty-year trends in the prevalence and severity of female genital mutilation: a comparison of 22 countries
- Reliability of self reported form of female genital mutilation and WHO classification: cross sectional study
- Baseline data from a planned RCT on attitudes to female genital cutting after migration: when are interventions justified?
- Conversations about FGM in primary care: a realist review on how, why and under what circumstances FGM is discussed in general practice consultations
- Female genital mutilation: the law as it relates to children
- Female genital mutilation: what every paediatrician should know
- Recognising our ‘invisible infants’: there is no internationally agreed definition of live birth—is this ethically acceptable?
- The impact of health education on attitudes of parents and religious leaders towards female genital mutilation
- Female genital cutting in Malaysia: a mixed-methods study
- Female genital mutilation: making the case for good practice