Chaplains can mediate between physicians and families by clarifying religious issues for physicians, who can then present treatment options informed by a patient’s priorities. Ideally, family and religious values and a physician’s judgment should work together to inform decision making.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(7):E670-674. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.670.
Andrew M. Courtwright, MA and Mia Wechsler Doron, MTS, MD
A positive right to parenthood obligates others to support a person’s attempt to become a parent. Do physicians have a duty to assist their patients’ procreative efforts, and, if so, in what ways?
Assuming rigid control over patients’ health care and subjecting them to strict regimens without offering them a choice in the matter is frank paternalism. Moreover, proceeding with an invasive test without obtaining proper informed consent is malpractice.
Society values both the appropriate use of new technological and management innovations and the maintenance of a strong personal and therapeutic relationship between patients and physicians. The medical-home model may be able to accomplish both.
In clinical settings, chaplains are key communicators who help mediate between patients, families, and the medical team. This month on Ethics Talk, we explore how chaplains help patients and families articulate their goals and navigate logistical and emotional challenges that arise in the hospital.
Dr David Marcus joins Ethics Talk to discuss his article: “When, If Ever, Is It Appropriate to Regard a Patient as ‘Too Medically Complex’ for One Inpatient Service, But Not Another?”
Constraints on hospitalists and surgeons and restricted orthopedic admission criteria can exacerbate patients’ distress that comes from clinicians’ disagreements.
AMA J Ethics. 2023;25(12):E873-877. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2023.873.
Marcia C. Inhorn, PhD, MPH and Pasquale Patrizio, MD, MBE
Low-cost in vitro fertilization (LCIVF) is better than no infertility treatment in countries that prohibit adoption and third-party reproductive assistance.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(3):228-237. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.3.ecas1-1803.