Stuart Finder - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Related Authors
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / French National Centre for Scientific Research
EHESS-Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales
Uploads
Papers by Stuart Finder
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 15265161 2015 1011012, Apr 9, 2015
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 15265161 2014 947819, Sep 17, 2014
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Nov 1, 2002
HEC Forum, 2016
Despite increased attention to the question of how best to evaluate clinical ethics consultations... more Despite increased attention to the question of how best to evaluate clinical ethics consultations and emphasis on external evaluation (Hastings Center Report, ASBH Quality Attestation Process), there has been little sustained focus on how we, as clinicians, make sense of and learn from our own experiences in the midst of any one consultation. Questions of how we evaluate the request for, unfolding of, and conclusion of any specific ethics consultation are often overlooked, along with the underlying question of whether it is possible to give an accurate account of clinical ethics consultants' experience as experienced by ethics consultants. Before the challenge of submitting one's accounts or case reports for review and evaluation from others (at one's local institution or in the broader field), there is an underlying challenge of understanding and evaluating our own accounts. To highlight this crucial and deeply challenging dimension of actual clinical ethics practice, we present an account of a complex consultation, explicitly constructed to engage the reader in the unfolding experience of the consultant by emphasizing the multiple perspectives unfolding within the consultant's experience. Written in script format, the three perspectives presented-prototypical clinically descriptive account; didactically reflective and self-evidentiary account often seen in journal presentations; highly self-critical reflective account emphasizing uncertainties inherent to clinical ethics practice-reflect different manners for responding to the ways actual clinical involvement in ethics consultation practice accentuates and refocuses the question of how to understand and evaluate our own work, as well as that of our colleagues.
The Journal of extra-corporeal technology
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2015
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2014
The American Journal of Bioethics, 2008
The American Journal of Bioethics, 2004
Journal of Religion and Health, 2011
Deciding who should receive maximal technological treatment options and who should not represents... more Deciding who should receive maximal technological treatment options and who should not represents an ethical, moral, psychological and medico-legal challenge for health care providers. Especially in patients with chronic heart failure, the ethical and medico-legal issues associated with providing maximal possible care or withholding the same are coming to the forefront. Procedures, such as cardiac transplantation, have strict criteria for adequate candidacy. These criteria for subsequent listing are based on clinical outcome data but also reflect the reality of organ shortage. Lack of compliance and nonadherence to lifestyle changes represent relative contraindications to heart transplant candidacy. Mechanical circulatory support therapy using ventricular assist devices is becoming a more prominent therapeutic option for patients with end-stage heart failure who are not candidates for transplantation, which also requires strict criteria to enable beneficial outcome for the patient. Physicians need to critically reflect that in many cases, the patient's best interest might not always mean pursuing maximal technological options available. This article reflects on the multitude of critical issues that health care providers have to face while caring for patients with end-stage heart failure.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2002
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2009
International Journal of Endocrine Oncology, 2016
J Amer Med Inform Assoc, 2010
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 15265161 2015 1011012, Apr 9, 2015
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 15265161 2014 947819, Sep 17, 2014
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Nov 1, 2002
HEC Forum, 2016
Despite increased attention to the question of how best to evaluate clinical ethics consultations... more Despite increased attention to the question of how best to evaluate clinical ethics consultations and emphasis on external evaluation (Hastings Center Report, ASBH Quality Attestation Process), there has been little sustained focus on how we, as clinicians, make sense of and learn from our own experiences in the midst of any one consultation. Questions of how we evaluate the request for, unfolding of, and conclusion of any specific ethics consultation are often overlooked, along with the underlying question of whether it is possible to give an accurate account of clinical ethics consultants' experience as experienced by ethics consultants. Before the challenge of submitting one's accounts or case reports for review and evaluation from others (at one's local institution or in the broader field), there is an underlying challenge of understanding and evaluating our own accounts. To highlight this crucial and deeply challenging dimension of actual clinical ethics practice, we present an account of a complex consultation, explicitly constructed to engage the reader in the unfolding experience of the consultant by emphasizing the multiple perspectives unfolding within the consultant's experience. Written in script format, the three perspectives presented-prototypical clinically descriptive account; didactically reflective and self-evidentiary account often seen in journal presentations; highly self-critical reflective account emphasizing uncertainties inherent to clinical ethics practice-reflect different manners for responding to the ways actual clinical involvement in ethics consultation practice accentuates and refocuses the question of how to understand and evaluate our own work, as well as that of our colleagues.
The Journal of extra-corporeal technology
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2015
The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2014
The American Journal of Bioethics, 2008
The American Journal of Bioethics, 2004
Journal of Religion and Health, 2011
Deciding who should receive maximal technological treatment options and who should not represents... more Deciding who should receive maximal technological treatment options and who should not represents an ethical, moral, psychological and medico-legal challenge for health care providers. Especially in patients with chronic heart failure, the ethical and medico-legal issues associated with providing maximal possible care or withholding the same are coming to the forefront. Procedures, such as cardiac transplantation, have strict criteria for adequate candidacy. These criteria for subsequent listing are based on clinical outcome data but also reflect the reality of organ shortage. Lack of compliance and nonadherence to lifestyle changes represent relative contraindications to heart transplant candidacy. Mechanical circulatory support therapy using ventricular assist devices is becoming a more prominent therapeutic option for patients with end-stage heart failure who are not candidates for transplantation, which also requires strict criteria to enable beneficial outcome for the patient. Physicians need to critically reflect that in many cases, the patient's best interest might not always mean pursuing maximal technological options available. This article reflects on the multitude of critical issues that health care providers have to face while caring for patients with end-stage heart failure.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 2002
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 2009
International Journal of Endocrine Oncology, 2016
J Amer Med Inform Assoc, 2010