A discourse-theoretic perspective on the bioethical-legal framework of genetic counseling

The reflexive nature of reason and the unique relationship reason shares with autonomy in Kant's philosophy is the theoretical basis of this dissertation. The principle of respect for autonomy undergirds the two main legal and ethical tenets of genetic counseling, an emerging profession trying to accommodate the sweeping changes that have occurred in clinical genetics, clinical ethics, and case law applicable to medicine. These two tenets of the counseling profession, informed consent and nondirectiveness, both share a principlist interpretation of autonomy that I argue is flawed due to its connection to: instrumental forms of reasoning, empirical theories of action supporting rational choice, and a liberal paradigm of law. I offer an alternative bioethical-legal framework that is based in the Kantian tradition in law and ethics through the complex theories of Jurgen Habermas. Following Habermas's reconstruction of the mutually constituting notions of private and public autonomy, I will argue for a richer conceptualization of autonomy that can have significant implications for the legal and bioethical concepts supporting the profession of genetic counseling, and which can ultimately change counseling practice. ^

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^