Volume 20, Issue 5, June 2020, Page 4-6.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is an independent medical humanitarian organisation working in over 70 countries. It has provided medical assistance for over 35 years to populations vulnerable through conflict, disease and inadequate health systems. Medical ethics define the starting point of the relationship between medical staff and patients. The ethics of humanitarian interventions and of research in conflict settings are much debated. However, less is known about the ethical dilemmas faced by medical humanitarian staff in their daily work. Ethical dilemmas (...) can be intensified in humanitarian contexts by insecure environments, lack of optimum care, language barriers, potentially heightened power discrepancies between care providers and patients, differing cultural values and perceptions of patients, communities and medical staff. Time constraints, stressful conditions and lack of familiarity with ethical frameworks can prevent reflection on these dilemmas, as can frustration that such reflection does not necessarily provide instant solutions. Lack of reflection, however, can be distressing for medical practitioners and can reduce the quality of care. Ethical reflection has a central role in MSF, and the organisation uses ethical frameworks to help with clinical and programmatic decisions as well as in deliberations over operational research. We illustrate and discuss some real ethical dilemmas facing MSF teams. Only by sharing and seeking guidance can MSF and similar actors make more thoughtful and appropriate decisions. Our aim in sharing these cases is to invite discussion and dialogue in the wider medical community working in crisis, conflict or with severe resource limitations. (shrink)

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003.1 i The Act makes it an offence for any person to excise, infibulate or otherwise mutilate the whole or any part of a female's labia majora, labia minora or clitoris, or to aid, abet, counsel or procure the mutilation by another person. The exception is where a surgical or obstetric procedure is clinically indicated. There has long been UK legalisation against female genital mutilation but the 2003 Act (...) extended the criminal offence to UK nationals and permanent residents who are overseas, including in countries where the practice is legal. A person found guilty of an offence under the Act can be imprisoned for up to 14 years.Precise figures for the number of girls and women who have undergone, or who are at risk of FGM, in the UK, are hard to establish because of the secrecy surrounding the practice. It is estimated, however, that over 21 000 girls under the age of 15, in England and Wales, are at high risk of FGM.2 Despite this prevalence, recent clinical and policy guidelines3,4 and the legislative framework to prosecute, there have been no prosecutions for FGM in the UK. Worryingly, there is a suggestion that some girls are being brought to the UK for FGM, as the UK is seen as having ‘fewer controls’ and ‘less awareness about FGM’. A recent quote in the BMJ noted ‘People from many countries in Europe go to the UK for this purpose’.5In response to the lack of prosecutions, in November 2012, the Crown Prosecution Service launched an action plan for improving prosecutions. Action points include: gathering more robust data on allegations of FGM; raising with Ministers what the existing reporting …. (shrink)

The Mental Capacity Act, which received Royal Assent in April 2005, will come into force in April 2007. The Act puts into statute the legality of interventions in relation to adults who lack capacity to make decisions on their own behalf. The aim of this paper is to outline the main features of the legislation and its impact on those health care professionals who provide care and treatment for incapacitated adults. The paper sets out the underlying ethical principles that govern (...) interventions under the Act's powers and briefly explores the legal definition of incapacity and the process by which capacity is assessed. It looks at the governing notion of 'best interests' and at the legal indemnity provided by the Act for interventions that are in the best interests of an incapacitated adult. It contains sections on the Act's main innovations, including research involving incapacitated adults, lasting powers of attorney and the new Court of Protection. It also provides information on advance decisions to refuse treatment. (shrink)

This article gives an overview of the development, remit, structure and working of the British Medical Association's Medical Ethics Committee. It situates it within a brief history of the Association and gives examples of current work.

The recent appearance of an extremely widespread avian influenza virus (H5N1) that has crossed to humans in highly pathogenic form has lead to speculation that another outbreak of pandemic influenza could be imminent. However, neither the timing of the pandemic, nor the nature and epidemiology of the virus, can be predicted. This uncertainty presents major difficulties in identifying relevant ethical issues in decision-making. If the next pandemic is relatively mild, decisions may be restricted to prioritizing access to essential health services (...) during the peak of the pandemic. If the virus is more pathogenic, social stability may be threatened. It is clear that, irrespective of the nature of the next pandemic, health professionals will have a key role in decisions about allocating scarce health resources during its acute stages. It is essential that they are not forced to make decisions without the support of established guidance or protocols. Any such guidance must be practical (decisions will often have to be made rapidly on the basis of imperfect information), reasoned, based upon sound moral principles, and must enjoy as far as possible the confidence of the wider population. This paper looks in brief at some of the ethical issues that need to be considered when planning a response to pandemic flu. (shrink)

Is medicine still good for us? sets out the facts about our medical establishments in a clear, engaging style, interrogating the ethics of modern practices and the impact they have on all our lives.