Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D W Brock

Publications and source records attributed to D W Brock.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1989

The development of a medical ethics curriculum in a General Internal Medicine Residency Program.

Since 1984, a three-year curriculum in medical ethics has operated at Rhode Island Hospital as part of the General Internal Medicine Residency Program at the Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University. The residency program was founded in 1980 to develop a model training program for internal medicine residents with a primary care focus. The three objective of the curriculum are (1) to enable residents to recognize the ethical implications of both inpatient and outpatient clinical cases, (2) to teach residents to recognize ethics issues and alternatives in order to arrive at a well-rounded clinical strategy, and (3) to help them learn to communicate sensitively with patients and others about these ethics issues and proposed management plans. The six major topics covered by the curriculum (for example, informed consent) are co-taught in a seminar format by one or more of the three members of the multidisciplinary ethics faculty (a philosopher, an internist, and a communications specialist) and experienced physicians. The authors describe the program, the roles of the various faculty members, the program's focus on case discussions, the receptivity of the residents and faculty to the program, the use and training of a multidisciplinary faculty, efforts aimed at evaluation, and future directions of the program.

Bioethical Issues↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The use of formal prior directives among patients with HIV-related diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the knowledge of, counseling about, and use of prior directives among patients with HIV-related disease. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey with personal interviews that was part of the evaluation of a multi-site AIDS Health Services Program. SETTING: Outpatient clinics and AIDS community-based organizations. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: To be eligible for the survey, subjects had to be at least 18 years of age and enrolled in the AIDS Health Services Program for at least one month. 1,031 clients were interviewed in nine communities. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of those surveyed, 61% had thought a moderate or great amount about naming a proxy for health care decisions. The majority (68%) of the patients knew about prior directives, yet only 35% had been counseled and only 28% had a prior directive. Of those counseled, physicians had counseled only 11% (38/359). Gay/bisexual men were more likely to have been counseled and to have executed a prior directive than were others. Counseling was associated with having obtained a prior directive. Counseled subjects were 3.5 times more likely to have obtained a prior directive than were those not counseled. CONCLUSIONS: A gap exists between subjects' knowledge and implementation of prior directives. To help bridge this gap, the authors recommend that physicians not only attend to the technical aspects of patient care, but also determine patient values concerning life-sustaining therapy and counsel patients on prior directives.

Advance Directives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Euthanasia.

The principles of self-determination and individual well-being support the use of voluntary euthanasia by those who do not have moral or professional objections to it. Opponents of this posture cite the ethical wrongness of the act itself and the folly of any public or legal policy permitting euthanasia. Positive consequences of making euthanasia legally permissible respect the autonomy of competent patients desiring it, expand the population of patients who can choose the option, and release the dying patient from otherwise prolonged suffering and agony. Potentially bad consequences of permitting euthanasia include the undermining of the "moral center" of medicine by allowing physicians to kill, the weakening of society's commitment to provide optimal care for dying patients, and, of greatest concern, the "slippery slope" argument. The evaluation of the arguments leads to support for euthanasia, with its performance not incompatible with a physician's professional commitment.

Beneficence↗