Rehabilitating care

The feminist ethic of care has often been criticized for its inability to address four problems--the problem of exploitation as it threatens care givers, the problem of sustaining care-giver integrity, the dangers of conceiving the mother-child dyad normatively as a paradigm for human relationships, and the problem of security social justice on a broad scale among relative strangers. We argue that there are resources within the ethic of care for addressing each of these problems, and we sketch strategies for developing the ethic more fully.     

Patient-provider care goal concordance: implications for palliative care decisions

Objective: Goal-concordant care is an important feature of high quality medical treatment. Patients’ care goals may focus on curative and/or palliative outcomes. Patients rarely communicate their care goals, and providers’ predictions of patient goals are often inaccurate, corresponding most closely to their own treatment goals. This projection of own goals onto patients introduces the potential for bias, leading to goal-discordant care.

Design and Main Outcomes: We examined goal discordance using data from a U.S. sample of healthcare providers (N?=?492) recruited online in 2017 using GfK Knowledge Panel. Providers reported their perceptions of their patients’ care goals (curative relative to palliative), their own care goals if they were to become ill, and their willingness to deliver palliative care.

Results: For 28% of providers, their own care goals differed from their patients’. Providers were more likely to prioritise palliative care (relative to curative) in their own goals than in their predictions about patients’ goals. Providers were more willing to deliver palliative care when their own goals prioritised more palliative relative to curative care, but their perceptions of patient goals were unassociated with willingness to provide it.

Conclusions: Efforts to improve goal communication and reduce projection biases among providers may facilitate goal-concordant care.     

Health care responsibility

The general and deep dissatisfaction with the present-day status of health care is of such intensity that one speaks of a health care crisis. What is most disturbing to the physicians is that society directs its accusation mainly at the health care professional for being responsible for this crisis. If we want to abolish the crisis we must try to get a renewed look at its source, i.e., to answer the questions “where did health care go wrong primarily?” and “with whom lies the ultimate responsibility for health care?”. In the following discourse these questions are discussed. Based on the assumption that every human being is a free rational agent the ultimate health care responsibility is assigned to the citizen. Of course, whether such an approach will in fact solve the problems inherent in present-day health systems cannot be predicted.     

Ethical care for infants with conditions not curable with intensive care

Offering intensive care to neonates who have conditions that carry extremely poor prognoses is a source of great contention amongst neonatologists. The concept of best interests is commonly used as a rationale for refusing such care, despite the fact that parents of these infants often have a different view of what best interests means. This article takes up the question of what best interests should incorporate for infants with lethal conditions not curable with intensive care, and how and who should decide which treatment options should be implemented. Based on our recommendation that parents be apprised of the basis upon which physicians are evaluating treatment options, we offer a framework that allows all relevant parties to approach the issue of what is appropriate treatment from a similar place. We maintain that this approach will increase transparency, dialogue, understanding, and trust, which, in turn, may result in greater consensus.     

Conflict across organizational boundaries: managed care organizations versus health care providers

This research examined conflicts that occur across organizational boundaries, specifically between managed care organizations and health care providers. Using boundary spanning theory as a framework, the authors identified 3 factors in the 1st study (30 interviews) that influence this conflict: (a) organizational power, (b) personal status differences of the individuals handling the conflict, and (c) their previous interactions. These factors affected the individuals' behavioral responses or emotions, specifically anger. After developing hypotheses, the authors tested them in a 2nd study using 109 conflict incidents drawn from 9 different managed care organizations. The results revealed that organizational power affects behavioral responses, whereas status differences and previous negative interactions affect emotions.     

Accountability and team care

Although we normally have no difficulty with holding individuals accountable for the effects of their actions, we are still confused about holding a health care team accountable. I argue that we can hold teams accountable in the same way that we hold individuals accountable. In constructing this argument, I first examine the nature of a “team,” then look at the consequences of team decision and action, in particular, the problem of synergistic decisionmaking. Finally I relate this philosophical discussion to patient care decisions by teams.     

Defining elder care.

This study was a beginning effort to clarify the different types of elder care and to understand which type of elder care, i.e., giving time or giving money, might be more closely associated with employed persons' health. Giving time, compared to giving money, to provide care may be weakly associated with emotional health (r = .05) and physical health (r = .04) as N = 2,269 (cf. rs of .00, .01); giving money may not be associated with either. Investigations of elder care and its consequences should be very specific when measuring this construct.     

Rationing just medical care

U.S. politicians and policymakers have been preoccupied with how to pay for health care. Hardly any thought has been given to what should be paid for--as though health care is a commodity that needs no examination--or what health outcomes should receive priority in a just society, i.e., rationing. I present a rationing proposal, consistent with U.S. culture and traditions, that deals not with "health care," the terminology used in the current debate, but with the more modest and limited topic of medical care. Integral to this rationing proposal--which allows scope to individual choice and at the same time recognizes the interdependence of the individual and society--is a definition of a "decent minimum," the basic package of medical treatments everyone should have access to in a just society. I apply it to a specific example, diabetes mellitus, and track it through a person's life span.     

Pastoral care is evangelism

Conclusion I consider the years which I spent in the study of pastoral psychology as the wedge which opened the door to genuine ministry for me. I doubt if I would have stayed in the pastorate without it. Furthermore, the disciplines of that study have been the basis for continued growth. I am conscious of the need to constantly develop deeper understandings of human nature, of the methods by which people can be helped, and to become more effective in using the resources of religion in meeting human need. I am aware of the importance of supervised examination of my own early experiences in order that I may understand their relationship to my pastoral and administrative work.Pastoral psychology has helped me acknowledge the relationship between my personal emotional handicaps and my vocational function. Furthermore, I am learning to remember that most religious learning is not conceptual but experimental. Faith is caught, not taught. If persons are to know the love of God, then they need a pastor whose maturity of faith, spirit of consecration, and integrity of life incarnate God's love.     

Anticruelty care: commentary

The anticruelty policy is a best-interests test for treatment plans including decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy for certain incompetent patients. In connection with specific proposed therapy, the policy requires no reference to the patient's unknowable values, subjective experiences, or quality of life. The decision to undertake a treatment plan derives from the caregiver's knowledge of burdens and benefits of that treatment when used in caring for the competent or for those incompetents capable of growth or repair. The caregiver should weigh the potentially cruel effects of treatment against the likelihood of reducing suffering or encumbrance with the treatment. The terms "burden" and "benefit," in fact, are replaced by the terms "cruelty" and "beneficence," as the relevant opposing outcomes that must be weighed. Thus, the anticruelty policy shifts our scrutiny from experiences of the patient that we cannot evaluate to the proposed actions of the competent decision makers and caregivers. Notably, it is a protreatment policy when the goals of medicine are attainable; and it is an anticruelty policy when they are not. The policy does evaluate the world of the patient to the extent that it requires a judgment based upon external appearances about patient pleasure or happiness in living. It presumes to universalize larger societal values about cruelty, beneficence, compassionate concern for the helpless, and certain rights of individuals. And it presumes to universalize on the patient's behalf specific medical values about hopeless injury, timely death, the goals of medicine, and cruelty, which should remain open to societal discussion and revision. The presented definition of hopeless injury does not require brain death, coma, or persistent vegetative state. Specifically, the policy holds that death is timely for a patient with hopeless injury, and that prevention of death for such patients is not a goal of medicine but a cruelty.