6 Apr, 16 | by Iain Brassington
30 Mar, 16 | by Iain Brassington
“Hey, Iain,” says Fran, a Manchester alumna, “What do you make of this?” I won’t bother rehearsing the whole scenario described in the post, but the dilemma it describes – set out by one Simon Carley – is fairly easily summarised: you work in A&E; a patient is rolled in who’s unconscious; there’s no ID, no medic alert bracelet – in short, nothing to show who the patient is or what their medical history is; but the patient does have an iPhone that uses thumbprints as a security feature. And it might be that there’s important information that’d be accessible by using the unconscious patient’s thumb to get at it – even if it’s only a family member who might be able to shed some light on the patient’s medical history.
It’s a potentially life-or-death call. Would it be permissible to hold the phone to the patient’s thumb?
For those who think that privacy is a side-constraint – that is, a moral consideration that should not be violated – the answer will be obvious, and they’ll probably stop reading around about… NOW. After all, if you’re committed to that kind of view, it’s entirely possible that the question itself won’t make a great deal of sense (tantamount to “Is it OK to do this thing that is plainly not OK?”), or at least not be worth asking. But I don’t think that privacy is a side-constraint; I’m increasingly of the opinion that privacy is a bit of an iffy concept across the board, for reasons that needn’t detain us here, but that might be implied by at least some of what follows. In short, I think that privacy is worth taking seriously as a consideration, but it’s almost certainly not trumps. At the very least, that’s how I shall handle it here. (Note here that the problem is one of privacy, not – as the OP has it – confidentiality; it’s a question about how to get information, rather than one of what you can do with information volunteered. A minor quibble, perhaps, but one worth making.) Even if I’m wrong about privacy in general, the question still seems to be worth asking, if only to confirm that and why it should not be violated. more…
27 Feb, 16 | by Iain Brassington
There’s an aisle at the supermarket that has a sign above it that reads “ADULT CEREALS”. Every time I see it, I snigger inwardly at the thought of sexually explicit cornflakes. (Pornflakes. You’re welcome.) It’s not big, and it’s not clever: I know that. But all these years living in south Manchester have taught me to grab whatever slivers of humour one can from life.
Anyway… A friend’s FB feed this morning pointed me in the direction of this: a page on Boredpanda showing some of the best entries to the 2016 Birth Photography competition. (Yeah: I know. I had no idea, either.)
I guess that birth photography is a bit of a niche field. The one that won “Best in Category: Labour” is, for my money, a brilliant picture. Some of the compositions are astonishingly good – but then, come to think of it, childbirth isn’t exactly a surprise, so I suppose that if you’re going to invite someone to photograph it, they’re going to have plenty of time to make sure that the lighting is right.
A second thought that the pictures raise is this: no matter how much people bang on about the miracle of birth… well, nope. Look at the labour picture again. I can’t begin to express how glad I am that that’s never going to happen to me; and I’m even more convinced than I was that I don’t want to play any part in inflicting that on another person.
But my overriding response is something in the realm of astonishment that some of the pictures are blanked out as having “mature content”.
I mean… really? more…
14 Feb, 16 | by Iain Brassington
Lord only knows, it pains me to jump to George Osborne’s defence – more so by resurrecting a meme that was already past it when I was first invited to run this blog in 2008 – but on this one occasion, I’m going to have to do it.
Last week, the BMJ reported about a case in which a psychiatrist was struck off the medical register for having entered into a sexual relationship with a vulnerable client. That’s dodgy enough in its own right; but he also asked her at the beginning of the affair to promise not to report him to the GMC. That shifts the whole case from being only (!) deeply dodgy to downright despicable – in effect, he’s admitted in that that there is cause to report him for his behaviour, but then gone ahead with that behaviour anyway. The vulnerability of the woman with whom he was having the affair adds extra piquancy to the whole sorry tale.
I don’t think that there can be any objection to this sort of thing being reported, though it doesn’t get reported often. I don’t know how often the GMC hears this kind of case, or whether every hearing attracts coverage. Maybe cases like this get reported whenever they happen, but that they don’t happen all that often. Or maybe they’re not infrequent, but the GMC has the consistent bad luck only to hand down its verdicts on days when there are bigger news stories to eclipse them.
Or maybe – and I have a suspicion that this is so – it’s the kind of case that is much more likely to get reported when the perpetrator happens to be the brother of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Call me a cynic, but that seems… tolerably likely.
Exhibit A on the evidence table: the opening sentence of the story in the BMJ.
Adam Osborne, the psychiatrist brother of the United Kingdom’s chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has been struck off the UK medical register for “blatant disregard of the fundamental tenets of the medical profession.”
Quite what George has to do with the story, and why the link to him is worth drawing is beyond me.
Ha! Just kidding. It’s not beyond me at all. It’s almost entirely to do with making the story enticing. Adam’s behaviour is no better or worse by dint of his family connections; they do nothing except to add a detail to something that would otherwise be merely sordid. And if you can offer a whiff of guilt-by-association by drawing a link between a creepy doctor and a prominent member of a government currently deeply unpopular among medics… well, so much the better, eh?
Now, the BMJ is not the only organisation to make this move: Adam Osborne has been in trouble before, and the BBC, for example, has never been reluctant to point out the family link. Here’s the thing, though: I don’t think that the Beeb should be doing it either. For sure, the BBC is at the very least a general-interest news provider, whereas the BMJ could, I think, be expected to concentrate on medicine and medics; yet even that partial mitigation of the BBC is so dismally weak that the only reason to articulate it is to provide a space to air doubts about whether it should have been articulated.
The BBC shouldn’t be doing it; no news organisation should be doing it; the BMJ shouldn’t be doing it.
The same principle applies to other people with embarrassing siblings, of course. Yes, we know that climate-change “sceptic” Piers Corbyn is Jeremy’s brother. Unless Jeremy’s policies on CO2 emissions are influenced by Piers, though, that’s neither here nor there; and in the event that Piers does something even dafter than predicting that another ice-age will begin in the middle of next week, there’d almost certainly be no justification for roping in his Jeremy. The same rules apply. But since that’s not a medical matter, I’m not going to moan about it here.
I just want to make it clear that I’m not holding a torch for George on this. I may disagree with him about any number of things, but the conduct of his brother is one thing for which we shouldn’t throw brickbats at him. Leave George alone.
24 Dec, 15 | by Iain Brassington
Here’s an intriguing letter from one John Doherty, published in the BMJ yesterday:
Medical titles may well reinforce a clinical hierarchy and inculcate deference in Florida, as Kennedy writes, but such constructs are culture bound.
When I worked in outback Australia the patients called me “Mate,” which is what I called them.
They still wanted me to be in charge.
Intriguing enough for me to go and have a look at what this Kennedy person had written. It’s available here, and the headline goes like this:
The Title “Doctor” in an Anachronism that Disrespects Patients
Oooooo-kay. A strong claim, and my hackles are immediately raised by the use of “disrespect” as a verb – or as a word at all. (Don’t ask me why I detest that so; I don’t know. It’s just one of those things that I will never be able to tolerate, a bit like quiche.) But let’s see… It’s not a long piece, but even so, I’ll settle for the edited highlights: more…
19 Dec, 15 | by Iain Brassington
Abortion is always going to be a controversial topic. For what it’s worth, I hold that there’s nothing wrong with it. That’s me speaking from my habitual non-consequentialist position. From a more utilitarian perspective, I’m willing to concede that, given the choice between world A, in which abortions happen, and world B, in which they don’t because noone gets pregnant without wanting it, and everyone is perfectly happy to continue with her pregnancy, A is worse. But A is nevertheless a whole lot less bad than world C, in which women are compelled to continue with pregnancies they don’t want. In other words, there’s no need or desire for abortion in super-happy-fluffy world, and super-happy-fluffy world is better than the real world – but we live in the real world, and having abortions available makes the real world better than it could be.
I’d like to think that I’m doughty enough to have my mind changed on this, though. Should someone have a really good argument for the wrongness of abortion, or the overwhelming badness, I’d like to think that I could be persuaded – that I’d let the argument go wherever it takes me. I think that that’s just intellectual honesty. It’s just that I have yet to come across an argument that I find persuasive, and I don’t even know what such an argument would look like.
What I can say is that, while I find even the best pro-life arguments unpersuasive, some are worse than others, though. There’s a guy who keeps posting to the Bioethics Facebook group with links to lamentably bad arguments. And, of course, there’s the CMF.
On their blog, Philippa Taylor has been getting herself into a tizzy about the recent ruling that Northern Ireland’s very restrictive laws contravene human rights legislation, and suggests that there is a whole range of reasons why the law should not be changed there.
Let’s have a look… more…
20 Jul, 15 | by Iain Brassington
… the phenomenon of apologising for the wrong thing comes alongside people taking umbrage at the wrong thing. Last week, the BMJ ran a head-to-head feature on the “question” of whether doctors should recommend homeopathy. This was the latest in a series of articles in which a question is posed, apparently strictly on the understanding that it’ll accommodate a polarised debate, and one person is invited to give a “yea” response, and another to give “nay”. I won’t bother here with a screed about homeopathy: Edzard Ernst does a good job in the BMJ piece, as have many others across the blogosphere. (You could do worse, for example, than to have a wander through the Anomalous Distraction blog, which is written by an ex-schoolmate of mine, and which also has lots of pretty pictures of proteins and things.) Since it’s a nice day, and I’m in a reasonably good mood, I’ll even admit that when Hahnemann was working, something like homeopathy was probably as good a punt as anything else that medicine had to offer. But… y’know.
Aaaaaanyway… A rather angry letter appeared. I think it’s worth examining, because it makes a number of normative and value claims; and if norms and values aren’t the meat and veg of an ethicist’s life, then we might as well go home. more…
10 Jul, 15 | by Iain Brassington
This is a bit of a strange post, not least because it involves citing sources – a blog post, and a whole blog -that have since been taken down from the net, for reasons that will become clear. It’s also going to involve a pair of fairly hefty quotations, largely because it’s the absence of a source that motivates this post – which means I can’t simply tell you to follow the links. It has to do with an apparent case of a surgeon deliberately causing a serious injury to a patient in the name of teaching, and with deceptions, and with apologies for those deceptions.
It’s also a very long post, even by my prolix standards.
OK: so, as quoted by Orac on his Respectful Insolence blog, here’s the case that gets the story going. It was originally recounted by someone calling themselves “Hope Amantine”, and was cross-posted atKevinMD.com, which bills itself as “social media’s leading physician voice”, is written by someone called Kevin Pho, and is a part a site called MedPage Today. This means that Orac’s version is at least third-hand; but I can’t do better than that, for reasons that will become clear. That’s a pain, but I’m going to have to take things on good faith – which, given what comes later, is perhaps asking for trouble. Either way, here’s the story:
So here I was, handling the plane (the layer, or space) around the IVC [inferior vena cava] with care to avoid ripping it. It seemed like the intelligent thing to do. My attending asked, “Why are you being so dainty with your dissection there?” I answered that I wanted to avoid ripping the cava because they’re so much harder to fix.
I take it he interpreted my comment as fear, and decided upon a teaching moment. He took his scissors and incredibly, before my eyes, and with no warning or preparation of any kind, cut a one-inch hole in the cava.
I was stunned. As I tried to process what I just saw, incredulous that he would actually intentionally make a hole in the cava, and as dark blood poured out of the hole, the tide rising steadily in the abdomen, he remarked, “Well, are you just going to stand there or are you going to fix that?”
And so I did. Whatever thoughts I might have had about his behavior, his judgment, and his sanity (and believe you me, there were many), I put my fingers on the hole to stop the flow. I suctioned out the blood that had already escaped, and irrigated the field, the Amazing One-Handed Surgeon did nothing to help me. This exercise was clearly a test. I got two sponge sticks to occlude flow above and below the hole which I instructed him to hold in position (which he dutifully did), and then I got my suture and I fixed the hole. No problem.
All he said was, “Good job.” And we proceeded to complete the case uneventfully.
Though I may not have agreed with his actions on that day, I do understand them. How do you teach someone to take charge when there is a crisis? I am certain that if I was put on the spot and shriveled and sniveled, and couldn’t control the bleeding, he would have taken over. And I would have failed.
So on that day, when the vascular attending cut that hole in the cava, he was preparing me, both for the oral exam, and for life as a surgeon. He wanted to see if I could handle it.
I guess I made the cut.
The excisions are mine – they’re where Orac makes a comment. However, there’s one more part that’s important – and this is now in Orac’s voice:
The reaction to Dr. Amantine’s post was furious and uniformly negative, both in the comments and in the Twittersphere, and yesterday there was an addendum:
Author’s note 7/8/2015: This is a fictional article. No one was harmed, then or ever, in my care or in my presence. I apologize for any remark that may have been misconstrued.
Orac calls BS on this, and I’m tempted to do likewise; but I’ll put that to one side for now. I’ll also note that I can’t check the flow of the original post, because it no longer exists. Indeed, Hope Amantine’s whole blog would seem to have been taken down. In the meantime, other blogs and pages also picked up the story from KevinMD: PZ Myers noted it on Pharyngula, Janet Stemwedel commented in a piece on Forbes‘ site, and I’m sure there were more. This is noteworthy, because, as I said, the OP has now gone. If you want to read it, you’ll have to go to where it was cross-posted or quoted (which makes this whole thing rather like a game of Chinese Whispers).
1 Jul, 15 | by Iain Brassington
A piece appeared in The Atlantic a few days ago that aims to prick the perceived bubble of professional ethicists. In fact, the headline is pretty hostile: THE HYPOCRISY OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICISTS. Blimey. The sub-headline doesn’t pull its punches either: “Even people who decide what’s right and wrong for a living don’t always behave well.”
I know that headlines are frequently not written by the person whose article they head, and so these won’t tell us much about the article – but, even so, I’m beginning to twitch. Do I decide what’s right and wrong for a living? I don’t think I do. I possibly thought that that’s what an ethicist does when I was a fresher, or at school – but I’m not certain I did even then. And even if I did, I discovered pretty quickly that it’s quite a bit more complicated than that. For sure, I think about what’s right and wrong, and about what “right” and “wrong” mean; and I might even aspire to make the occasional discovery about right and wrong (or at least about how best to think about right and wrong).* But as for deciding what is right and wrong? Naaaah.
Anyway: to the substance of the piece, which – to be fair – is more moderate in tone, pointing out that “those who ponder big questions for a living don’t necessarily behave better, or think more clearly, than regular people do”. That’s probably accurate enough, at least a good amount of the time. I’d like to think that I’m thinking better about a particular problem than most people when I’m working on it; but I’m also thinking better about in that context than I would be at other times. (Ask me about – say – genetic privacy while I’m drafting a section of a paper on genetic privacy, and I’m your man. Ask me while I’m making pastry… not so much.) If we allow that I’m better at dealing with (a) specific moral question(s) while “on duty”, that won’t mean I’m not susceptible to the same intellectual shortcuts and fallacies as everyone else at least most of the rest of the time. I’m probably almost as susceptible to them even when I am on duty. I’d assume that the same applies to others in the profession, too.
The article does make great play of the apparent inconsistencies between what ethicists say and what they/ we do. So there’s the finding about how many more say that eating meat is morally problematic than actually avoid it, and the chestnut about how ethics books are the ones most frequently stolen from libraries.** At least there are decent sources cited – peer-reviewed papers like this one that are philosophically informed, to boot.
So: ethicists aren’t reliably better behaved than others. I don’t think that should surprise us, though. But, there’s a couple of questions into which we might still want to dig more deeply. more…
1 Jun, 15 | by Iain Brassington
With any luck, the marking tsunami will have receded by the end of the week, and so I should be able to get back to blogging a bit more frequently soon.
In the meantime, I’ll fill some space by ripping off something from the “Feedback” page of the latest New Scientist:
The TV industry has […] yet another new mantra: “Not just more pixels, but better pixels”. The marketeers’ problem is that few people can actually see the extra details in their newest, flashiest sets unless they sit very close or the screen is very, very bright.
A colleague found a demonstration unpleasant, especially when the image flashed, and wondered about the possible risk of this triggering photo-epilepsy or migraines. One company said, yes, this was being looked into- but no, they could not identify the university doing the work.
Then in the tea break at a tech conference a senior engineer from a UK TV station confided the reason: “We are very aware of the risks and would love to do some real research. But nobody dares to do it because it would involve tests that deliberately push subjects into epileptic fits, and might very possibly kill them.”
In other words: here’s an intuitively plausible risk associated with product p; we could test whether p is safe; but doing that test itself would be unsafe. Were this a pharmaceutical trial, one would expect that things would stop there – or, at the very least, that things would move very slowly and carefully indeed. (Maybe if the drug is highly beneficial, and can be used in highly controlled circumstances, it might be worth it.)
But with TVs… well, it looks like journalists have been invited to the product launch already. My guess is that if the TV is found to be risky, it’d be quietly withdrawn ex post facto – which seems rather late in the day.
It is a bit strange that trials on a product aren’t being done not so much because of what they might reveal, as because even doing the test might be iffy. Stranger yet that this is unlikely to make much of a dent in the marketing strategy. Or, given the requirements of consumer capitalism, not all that strange after all: take your pick.
Sometimes, Big Pharma can seem like a model of probity.
Journal of Medical Ethics
Analysis and discussion of developments in the medical ethics field. Visit site
- You are currently browsing the archives for the Curios category.
- Blogosphere (134)
- BMJ (25)
- Book review (16)
- Brian Earp's Posts (12)
- CFP (4)
- clinical ethics (52)
- Conferences (46)
- Consultation (8)
- Curios (82)
- Distributive justice (7)
- Enhancement (18)
- Ethics education (24)
- Genetic jiggerypokery (11)
- Gratuitous Misuse of the Blog (13)
- Gratuitous music video (7)
- Guest Post (46)
- Housekeeping (6)
- In the Courts (14)
- In the Journals (44)
- In the News (220)
- Institute of Medical Ethics (1)
- JME (96)
- Jobs (4)
- language (22)
- Law (26)
- Life and Death (129)
- Mental Health (6)
- Methodology (34)
- Navel-gazing (35)
- Neuroethics (1)
- Organ donation (2)
- Petty feuding (3)
- Philosophy (105)
- Politics (129)
- Prisencolinensinainciusol (3)
- Professionalism (15)
- Public Health (31)
- Rant (32)
- Readers' queries (3)
- Reproduction (48)
- Research (57)
- Research Ethics (26)
- Resource (85)
- Shameless self-publicity (26)
- Studentships (7)
- The Academy (33)
- The Art of Medicine (52)
- The NHS (28)
- Thinking Aloud (152)
- Tinfoil Hat (17)
- Uncategorized (60)
- Welcome (1)
- WTF? (42)
Email alertsSubscribe to this blog via email
Browse our archives