当前位置: X-MOL 学术BMC Med. Ethics › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Clinical ethics consultation: examining how American and Japanese experts analyze an Alzheimer's case.
BMC Medical Ethics ( IF 3.0 ) Pub Date : 2008-01-29 , DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-2
Noriko Nagao 1 , Mark P Aulisio , Yoshio Nukaga , Misao Fujita , Shinji Kosugi , Stuart Youngner , Akira Akabayashi
Affiliation  

BACKGROUND Few comparative studies of clinical ethics consultation practices have been reported. The objective of this study was to explore how American and Japanese experts analyze an Alzheimer's case regarding ethics consultation. METHODS We presented the case to physicians and ethicists from the US and Japan (one expert from each field from both countries; total = 4) and obtained their responses through a questionnaire and in-depth interviews. RESULTS Establishing a consensus was a common goal among American and Japanese participants. In attempting to achieve consensus, the most significant similarity between Japanese and American ethics consultants was that they both appeared to adopt an "ethics facilitation" approach. Differences were found in recommendation and assessment between the American and Japanese participants. In selecting a surrogate, the American participants chose to contact the grandson before designating the daughter-in-law as the surrogate decision-maker. Conversely the Japanese experts assumed that the daughter-in-law was the surrogate. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that consensus building through an "ethics facilitation" approach may be a commonality to the practice of ethics consultation in the US and Japan, while differences emerged in terms of recommendations, surrogate assessment, and assessing treatments. Further research is needed to appreciate differences not only among different nations including, but not limited to, countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but also within each country.

中文翻译:

临床伦理咨询:研究美国和日本专家如何分析阿尔茨海默病病例。

背景 很少有临床伦理咨询实践的比较研究报道。本研究的目的是探讨美国和日本专家如何分析有关伦理咨询的阿尔茨海默病病例。方法 我们向美国和日本的医生和伦理学家(两国各领域各一名专家;共 4 名)介绍了该病例,并通过问卷调查和深度访谈获得了他们的答复。结果 达成共识是美国和日本参与者的共同目标。在试图达成共识时,日本和美国伦理顾问之间最显着的相似之处在于他们似乎都采用了“伦理促进”方法。美国和日本参与者在推荐和评估方面存在差异。在选择代理人时,美国参与者选择先联系孙子,然后再指定儿媳作为代理人决策者。相反,日本专家认为儿媳是代理人。结论 我们的研究结果表明,通过“伦理促进”方法达成共识可能是美国和日本伦理咨询实践的共性,而在建议、替代评估和评估治疗方面存在差异。需要进一步研究以了解不同国家之间的差异,包括但不限于欧洲、亚洲和美洲国家,以及每个国家内部的差异。美国参与者在指定儿媳作为代理决策者之前选择联系孙子。相反,日本专家认为儿媳是代理人。结论 我们的研究结果表明,通过“伦理促进”方法达成共识可能是美国和日本伦理咨询实践的共性,而在建议、替代评估和评估治疗方面存在差异。需要进一步研究以了解不同国家之间的差异,包括但不限于欧洲、亚洲和美洲国家,以及每个国家内部的差异。美国参与者在指定儿媳作为代理决策者之前选择联系孙子。相反,日本专家认为儿媳是代理人。结论 我们的研究结果表明,通过“伦理促进”方法达成共识可能是美国和日本伦理咨询实践的共性,而在建议、替代评估和评估治疗方面存在差异。需要进一步研究以了解不同国家之间的差异,包括但不限于欧洲、亚洲和美洲国家,以及每个国家内部的差异。结论 我们的研究结果表明,通过“伦理促进”方法达成共识可能是美国和日本伦理咨询实践的共性,而在建议、替代评估和评估治疗方面存在差异。需要进一步研究以了解不同国家之间的差异,包括但不限于欧洲、亚洲和美洲国家,以及每个国家内部的差异。结论 我们的研究结果表明,通过“伦理促进”方法达成共识可能是美国和日本伦理咨询实践的共性,而在建议、替代评估和评估治疗方面存在差异。需要进一步研究以了解不同国家之间的差异,包括但不限于欧洲、亚洲和美洲国家,以及每个国家内部的差异。
更新日期:2019-11-01
down
wechat
bug