In this case report, we describe a woman with advancing dementia who still retained decisional capacity and was able to clearly articulate her request for deactivation of her implanted cardiac pacemaker—a scenario that would result in her death. In this case, the patient had the autonomy to make her decision, but clinicians at an outside hospital refused to deactivate her pacemaker even though they were in unanimous agreement that the patient had capacity to make this decision, citing personal discomfort and a belief that her decision seemed out of proportion to her suffering. We evaluated her at our hospital, found her to have decision-making capacity, and deactivated her pacer resulting in her death about 9 days later. While some clinicians may be comfortable discussing patient preferences for device deactivation in patients who are imminently dying, we can find no reports in the literature of requests for device deactivation from patients with terminal diagnoses who are not imminently dying.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Article 12 General Commentary, explicitly states that persons with mental illnesses must always have full exercise of their legal rights in all their aspects. Assistants or support persons must not substitute or have undue influence on the decisions of persons with disabilities, including the expression of their consent. Rationales behind the concept include increased patient autonomy, promotion of coping skills, early help-seeking, avoidance of power struggles, establishment of an asylum function, reduced time spent in inpatient care and prevention of coercive measures. Quantitative data points toward a dramatic reduction of total time spent in inpatient care and of involuntary admissions in patients with previously high inpatient care consumption, whereas qualitative data indicates that the concept increases patient autonomy, responsibility and confidence in daily life. Patient-controlled admission is a promising novel approach to inpatient care in psychiatry. However, available studies are small and quality of evidence is generally low. In this talk an overview of literature review on involuntary admissions and patient autonomy as well as ethical aspects will be given and discussed.

Responses to brain injury sit in the intersection between neuroscience and an ethic of care, and require sensitive and dynamic indicators of how an individual with brain injury can learn how to live in the context of a changing environment and multiple timescales. Therapeutic relationships and rhythms underpinning such a dynamic approach are currently obscured by existing models of brain function. Something older is required and we put forward narrative types articulating outcomes of brain injury over various periods and starting points in time. Such storytelling challenges a static neuropsychological paradigm and moves from an ethics that focuses on patient autonomy into one that is reflective of the cognitive supports and therapeutic relationships that underpin ways that the patient can re-find the beat that proves the music is not over.

The nocebo effect, a phenomenon whereby learning about the possible side effects of a medical treatment increases the likelihood that one will suffer these side effects, continues to challenge physicians and ethicists. If a physician fully informs her patient as to the potential side effects of a medicine that may produce nocebogenic effects, which is usually conceived of as being a requirement associated with the duty to respect autonomy, she risks increasing the likelihood that her patient will experience these side effects and therefore suffer (unnecessary) harm, a violation of the duty of nonmaleficence. If, on the other hand, she intentionally withholds side effect information in an effort to protect her patient from suffering unnecessary harm from side effects, which is consistent with the duty of nonmaleficence, she violates the duty to respect patient autonomy. In this paper, the author discusses several previous attempts to deal with the nocebo effect and explains their weaknesses. He then proposes a means of managing the nocebo effect and argues that it does not share the weaknesses found in previous approaches. He concludes with a discussion of a simple, yet practical tool that might help clinicians manage the tension resulting from the nocebo effect.

Suicide is a complex issue that is sparking increasingly more debate in contemporary society. There is need for an open discussion on the concept of rational suicide, specifically in relation to psychiatric disorders, so as to resolve the conflict between the duty of care of psychiatrists and the autonomy of patients. To be able to conduct such a discussion in an objective manner, we must first be made aware of the potential prejudices that we harbour on the topic of suicide as a result of our societal and historical background. A historical and philosophical approach to the topic, through careful examination of the topic of suicide in the texts of Plato, helps create such an awareness.

In this paper, the author argues that Joseph Fins’ mosaic decisionmaking model for brain-injured patients is untenable. He supports this claim by identifying three problems with mosaic decisionmaking. First, that it is unclear whether a mosaic is a conceptually adequate metaphor for a decisionmaking process that is intended to promote patient autonomy. Second, that the proposed legal framework for mosaic decisionmaking is inappropriate. Third, that it is unclear how we ought to select patients for participation in mosaic decisionmaking.

In this article, we discuss the ideas of Eric J. Cassell about the patient-professional relationship. We argue that his approach combines in an interesting way features from the literature on patient autonomy and paternalistic practices. We suggest that these seemingly paternalistic features of practicing medicine, which are widely either ignored or condemned in bioethical discussion, are of vital significance in medical practice. In the first sections of the article, we describe the main features of Cassell’s understanding of the sick person and his version of personalized medicine. We pay particular attention to his notion of information control and compare his ideas about conversation with patients to Hans-Georg Gadamer’s analysis of patient-professional dialogue. In the latter part of the article, we explore through a couple of examples the implications these ideas have for medical practice.

This section welcomes submissions addressing literature as a means to explore ethical issues arising in healthcare. “Literature” will be understood broadly, including fiction and creative nonfiction, illness narratives, drama, and poetry; film studies might be considered if the films are adaptations from a literary work. Topics include in-depth analysis of literary works as well as theoretical contributions, discussions, and commentary about narrative approaches to disease and medicine, the way literature shapes the relationship between patients and healthcare professionals, the role of speculative fiction as a testing ground for future scenarios in healthcare, and so on. Articles discussing the uses of literature for bioethics education and outreach will be particularly appreciated. Research on literature not originally written in English will be considered as long as it has also been published in translation. Submissions should include an abstract and should conform to the CQ Guidelines for Contributors. To submit an article or discuss a suitable topic, write to Antonio Casado da Rocha at [email protected].