PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

B M Aboff

Publications and source records attributed to B M Aboff.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Physicians' willingness to participate in the process of lethal injection for capital punishment.

BACKGROUND: It has been found that physicians condone colleague involvement in capital punishment. Physicians' own willingness to participate has not been explored. OBJECTIVE: To examine physicians' willingness to be involved in cases of capital punishment. DESIGN: Survey exploring physicians' willingness to participate in 10 aspects of capital punishment by lethal injection, 8 of which are disallowed by the American Medical Association. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 1000 randomly selected practicing physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Questions assessing willingness to be involved in and attitudes toward capital punishment. RESULTS: 41% of respondents indicated that they would perform at least one action disallowed by the American Medical Association; 25% would perform five or more disallowed actions. Perceived duty to society (P < 0.001), approval of the death penalty (P < 0.001), and approval of assisted suicide (P = 0.015) correlated with increased willingness to perform disallowed actions. Only 3% of respondents knew of any guidelines on this issue. CONCLUSIONS: Despite medical society policies, many physicians would be willing to be involved in the execution of adults. The medical profession needs to be better informed about the ethical issues involved in physician participation in capital punishment.

American Medical Association↗
PubMed2000

Chaperone use by residents during pelvic, breast, testicular, and rectal exams.

We designed a questionnaire survey to study internal medicine residents' plans to use a chaperone during the pelvic, breast, rectal, and testicular examinations. We found chaperone use by male and female residents differed markedly, and neither group planned to use chaperones universally. When examining female patients, male residents overall were very likely to use a chaperone during a pelvic exam, but less likely for the breast exam and rectal exam. For the female resident, there was a significantly lower likelihood of using chaperones during the pelvic, breast, or rectal exams. There was a much lower rate of chaperone use during the sensitive portions of the male physical examination compared with the female examination, with somewhat higher use by female residents. We concluded that male and female residents differ significantly in their patterns of chaperone use. It would be valuable to develop guidelines for chaperone use to help residents understand the issues involved in the choices, and to protect the residents from the possible medico-legal consequences of forgoing chaperones.

Age Factors↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Lying to each other: when internal medicine residents use deception with their colleagues.

BACKGROUND: While lying is morally problematic, physicians have been known to use deception with their patients and with third parties. Little is known, however, about the use of deception between physicians. OBJECTIVES: To determine the likelihood that resident physicians say they would deceive other physicians in various circumstances and to examine how variations in circumstances affect the likelihood of using deception. METHODS: Two versions of a confidential survey using vignettes were randomly distributed to all internal medicine residents at 4 teaching hospitals in 1998. Survey versions differed by introducing slight variations to each vignette in ways we hypothesized would influence respondents' willingness to deceive. The likelihood that residents say they would use deception in response to each vignette was compared between versions. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty surveys were distributed (response rate, 67%). Of those who responded, 36% indicated they were likely to use deception to avoid exchanging call, 15% would misrepresent a diagnosis in a medical record to protect patient privacy, 14% would fabricate a laboratory value to an attending physician, 6% would substitute their own urine in a drug test to protect a colleague, and 5% would lie about checking a patient's stool for blood to cover up a medical mistake. For some of the scenarios, the likelihood of deceiving was influenced by variations in the vignettes. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial percentage of internal medicine residents report they would deceive a colleague in various circumstances, and the likelihood of using deception depends on the context. While lying about clinical issues is not common, it is troubling when it occurs at any time. Medical educators should be aware of circumstances in which residents are likely to deceive, and discuss ways to eliminate incentives to lie.

Adult↗