Allocating resources for interventions requires consensus among stakeholders with a plurality of perspectives about how to weigh antimicrobial stewardship interventions’ risks and benefits.

Dr Paul T. Menzel joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article: "How Should Willingness-to-Pay Values of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Be Updated and According to Whom?"

No single person should make decisions about for whom or according to which criteria palliative surgery is clinically and ethically appropriate.

Differentiating between best palliative care options and the curative and palliative potential of surgery is key to developing dual intentional clarity.

When surgical intervention is most appropriate, success should be defined by how well a surgical intervention aligns with a patient’s goals.

A surgeon’s duty is to identify goals of care, including those about quality of life, from a patient’s perspective and to consider how to achieve them.

For some patients whose survival is extended by disease-modifying interventions, little guidance about clinical and ethical complexities exist.

Calls to expand palliative care education have been explicit since the 1990s, but palliative care training in surgery remains too narrowly focused on end of life.

Priorities far beyond generating morbidity or mortality data are needed to improve patients’ experiences, innovate metrics, and advance surgical palliation as a field.

Seeming incongruity between surgery and palliation reiterates patients’ needs for clinicians to be able to identify when and how they should coexist.