Omissions, causation and responsibility

In this paper I discuss a recent exchange of articles between Hugh McLachlan and John Coggon on the relationship between omissions, causation and moral responsibility. My aim is to contribute to their debate by isolating a presupposition I believe they both share, and by questioning that presupposition. The presupposition is that, at any given moment, there are countless things that I am omitting to do. This leads them both to give a distorted account of the relationship between causation and moral or (as the case may be) legal responsibility, and, in the case of Coggon, to claim that the law’s conception of causation is a fiction based on policy. Once it is seen that this presupposition is faulty, we can attain a more accurate view of the logical relationship between causation and moral responsibility in the case of omissions. This is important because it will enable us, in turn, to understand why the law continues to regard omissions as different, both logically and morally, from acts, and why the law seeks to track that logical and moral difference in the legal distinction it draws between withholding life-sustaining measures and euthanasia.

Evaluating medical information retrieval

This paper presents a framework for evaluating information retrieval of medical records. We use the BLULab corpus, a large collection of real-world de-identified medical records. The collection has been hand coded by clinical terminol- ogists using the ICD-9 medical classification system. The ICD codes are used to devise queries and relevance judge- ments for this collection. Results of initial test runs using a baseline IR system are provided. Queries and relevance judgements are online to aid further research in medical IR. Please visit: http://koopman.id.au/med_eval.

Under the carpet : the politics and trauma of patient harm

Few studies have investigated iatrogenic outcomes from the viewpoint of patient experience. To address this anomaly, the broad aim of this research is to explore the lived experience of patient harm. Patient harm is defined as major harm to the patient, either psychosocial or physical in nature, resulting from any aspect of health care. Utilising the method of Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR), in-depth interviews are conducted with twenty-four volunteer research participants who self-report having been severely harmed by an invasive medical procedure. A standardised measure of emotional distress, the Impact of Event Scale (IES), is additionally employed for purposes of triangulation. Thematic analysis of transcript data indicate numerous findings including: (i) difficulties regarding patients‘ prior understanding of risks involved with their medical procedure; (ii) the problematic response of the health system post-procedure; (iii) multiple adverse effects upon life functioning; (iv) limited recourse options for patients; and (v) the approach desired in terms of how patient harm should be systemically handled. In addition, IES results indicate a clinically significant level of distress in the sample as a whole. To discuss findings, a cross-disciplinary approach is adopted that draws upon sociology, medicine, medical anthropology, psychology, philosophy, history, ethics, law, and political theory. Furthermore, an overall explanatory framework is proposed in terms of the master themes of power and trauma. In terms of the theme of power, a postmodernist analysis explores the politics of patient harm, particularly the dynamics surrounding the politics of knowledge (e.g., notions of subjective versus objective knowledge, informed consent, and open disclosure). This analysis suggests that patient care is not the prime function of the health system, which appears more focussed upon serving the interests of those in the upper levels of its hierarchy. In terms of the master theme of trauma, current understandings of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are critiqued, and based on data from this research as well as the international literature, a new model of trauma is proposed. This model is based upon the principle of homeostasis observed in biology, whereby within every cell or organism a state of equilibrium is sought and maintained. The proposed model identifies several bio-psychosocial markers of trauma across its three main phases. These trauma markers include: (i) a profound sense of loss; (ii) a lack of perceived control; (iii) passive trauma processing responses; (iv) an identity crisis; (v) a quest to fully understand the trauma event; (vi) a need for social validation of the traumatic experience; and (vii) posttraumatic adaption with the possibility of positive change. To further explore the master themes of power and trauma, a natural group interview is carried out at a meeting of a patient support group for arachnoiditis. Observations at this meeting and members‘ stories in general support the homeostatic model of trauma, particularly the quest to find answers in the face of distressing experience, as well as the need for social recognition of that experience. In addition, the sociopolitical response to arachnoiditis highlights how public domains of knowledge are largely constructed and controlled by vested interests. Implications of the data overall are discussed in terms of a cultural revolution being needed in health care to position core values around a prime focus upon patients as human beings.

Managing medical advice seeking in calls to Child Health Line

Child Health Line is a 24-hour Australian helpline that offers information and support for parents and families on child development and parenting. The helpline guidelines suggest that nurses should not offer medical advice, however they regularly receive calls seeking such advice. This paper examines how the service guidelines are talked into being through the nurses’ management of caller’s requests for medical advice and information, and shows how nurses orient to the boundaries of their professional role and institutionally regulated authority. Three ways in which the child health nurses manage medical advice and information seeking are discussed: using membership as a nurse to establish boundaries of expertise, privileging parental authority regarding decision making about seeking treatment for their child, and respecifying a ‘medical’ problem as a child development issue. The paper contributes to research on medical authority, and nurse authority in particular, by demonstrating the impact of institutional roles and guidelines on displays of knowledge and expertise. More generally, it contributes to an understanding of the interactional enactment and consequences of service guidelines for telehealth practice, with implications for training, policy and service delivery.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Loss of chance in medical negligence claims now a lost cause?

The question whether the loss of chance of a better medical outcome in cases of medical negligence should be recognised as actionable damage is ‘a question which has divided courts and commentators throughout the common law world.’ In April 2010, the High Court handed down its anticipated decision in the case of Tabet (by her Tutor Sheiban) v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537. The issue considered by the court was whether the appellant could claim in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. This issue had not been considered by the High Court previously, the most relevant cases being Rufo v Hosking (2004) 61 NSWLR 678 and Gavalas v Singh (2001) 3 VLR 404. Claiming for a loss of chance in a personal injury action raises questions as to recognised damage and causation, and the members of the High Court considered both of these.

Me and my body : the relevance of the difference for the distinction between withdrawing life support and euthanasia

In this paper I discuss David Shaw’s claim that the body of a terminally ill person can be conceived as a kind of life-support, akin to an artificial ventilator. I claim that this position rests upon an untenable dualism between the mind and the body. Given that dualism continues to be attractive to some thinkers, I attempt to diagnose the reasons why it continues to be attractive, as well as to demonstrate its incoherence, drawing on some recent work in the philosophy of psychology. I conclude that, if my criticisms are sound, Shaw’s attempt to deny the distinction between withdrawal and euthanasia fails.