PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Cynthia B Cohen

Publications and source records attributed to Cynthia B Cohen.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

Discussing religious and spiritual issues at the end of life: a practical guide for physicians.

As patients near the end of life, their spiritual and religious concerns may be awakened or intensified. Many physicians, however, feel unskilled and uncomfortable discussing these concerns. This article suggests how physicians might respond when patients or families raise such concerns. First, some patients may explicitly base decisions about life-sustaining interventions on their spiritual or religious beliefs. Physicians need to explore those beliefs to help patients think through their preferences regarding specific interventions. Second, other patients may not bring up spiritual or religious concerns but are troubled by them. Physicians should identify such concerns and listen to them empathetically, without trying to alleviate the patient's spiritual suffering or offering premature reassurance. Third, some patients or families may have religious reasons for insisting on life-sustaining interventions that physicians advise against. The physician should listen and try to understand the patient's viewpoint. Listening respectfully does not require the physician to agree with the patient or misrepresent his or her own views. Patients and families who feel that the physician understands them and cares about them may be more willing to consider the physician's views on prognosis and treatment. By responding to patients' spiritual and religious concerns and needs, physicians may help them find comfort and closure near the end of life.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2002

Public policy and the sale of human organs.

Gill and Sade, in the preceding article in this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, argue that living individuals should be free from legal constraints against selling their organs. The present commentary responds to several of their claims. It explains why an analogy between kidneys and blood fails; why, as a matter of public policy, we prohibit the sale of human solid organs, yet allow the sale of blood; and why their attack on Kant's putative argument against the sale of human body parts is misplaced. Finally, it rejects the claim that the state is entitled to interfere with the actions of individuals only if such actions would harm others. We draw certain lines grounded in what Rawls has termed "public reason" beyond which we do not give effect to the autonomous self-regarding decisions of individuals. Public resistance to the sale of human body parts, no matter how voluntary or well informed, is grounded in the conviction that such a practice would diminish human dignity and our sense of solidarity. A system of organ donation, in contrast, conveys our respect for persons and honors our common humanity.

Blood Donors↗
PubMed1998

Wrestling with the future: should we test children for adult-onset genetic conditions?

Genetics professionals have been reluctant to test children for adult-onset conditions because they believe this would create psychosocial harm to children not counterbalanced by significant benefits. An additional concern they express is that such testing would violate the autonomy of these children as adults. Yet weighing the harms and benefits of such testing results in a draw, with no substantial harms proven. Moreover, such testing can enhance, rather than violate the adult autonomy of these children. In deciding whether to proceed with predictive testing of children, parents, mature children, and health care professionals should consider a complex of factors relevant to the particular child. The importance of these factors will vary depending on the condition at issue, the age and stage of development of the child, family dynamics, and the concerns, values, and objectives of the parents and mature child. The final decision whether to test a child for an adult-onset condition should rest with the parents and the mature child.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

Introduction.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Avoiding "Cloudcuckooland" in ethics committee case review: matching models to issues and concerns.

... The special concerns of families, patients, and caregivers are inevitably interwoven among the difficult ethical issues that ethics committees confront when they review individual cases. Certain of these ethical issues and special concerns can be addressed more effectively by the use of one particular case review model. This means that no one model for case review is suited to address every ethically difficult patient care situation. When one case review model is used exclusively by an ethics committee, some issues and concerns will not be resolved effectively. This difficulty cannot be ameliorated by switching to another exclusive model. To do so would be to trade an Athens for a "Cloudcuckooland." The case review model selected by ethics committees must vary from case to case. The model that is chosen should be geared to resolve the ethical issues central to that situation and the special concerns of patient, family, and caregivers. An examination of the three received models [the committee as a whole, teams, and individual members or consultants] will show that each is particularly suited to resolve certain kinds of ethical issues and special concerns. Because of this, ethics committees should develop a method for choosing the most appropriate model for reviewing specific cases.

Bioethical Issues↗
PubMed1992

Required reconsideration of "do-not-resuscitate" orders in the operating room and certain other treatment settings.

It is time to change the assumption that DNR orders apply in every treatment setting in the hospital. It is appropriate to mandate not only that these orders be reconsidered on the basis of time, but also on the basis of setting. When patients enter treatment settings in which discrete, time-limited therapies that can precipitate cardiac arrest are offered, they or their surrogates should reconsider the question of resuscitation with their current and primary physicians. While this will make patient transition from one hospital setting to another more complicated, it will allow patients to receive treatment directed toward their individual needs, immediate treatment objectives, and long-term treatment goals. It will also assure health care professionals that they will not be required to withhold treatment essential for meeting patients' treatment objectives in these settings.

Advance Directives↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Unmanaged care: the need to regulate new reproductive technologies in the United States.

In the aftermath of allegations of the misuse of human eggs in the United States, questions are being raised about whether profitable reproductive services should continue to function in a free market under the aegis of physicians or should be regulated. Other countries in which reproductive technologies are employed to a significant degree have developed regulations governing their use, many as a result of recommendations made by inter-disciplinary commissions that solicited public input. Policy makers in the United States have been reluctant to regulate reproductive technologies, however, because their use is politically controversial, they want to whittle down government, some do not consider infertility an illness, and some believe regulation would interfere with the right to reproduce. Yet the unfettered use of reproductive technologies can create such harms as lack of informed consent, providing procedures not medically indicated for financial gain, practice by unqualified personnel, injury to patients and donors, failure to screen donated gametes, and inadequate medical record keeping. Americans place special value on the welfare of children and those who bring them into the world. Such values can outweigh individual procreative liberty when new reproductive technologies are at issue. Although the optimal course would be to establish a regulatory body to govern reproductive technologies, this is not politically feasible now. The newly established National Bioethics Advisory Commission provides a forum in which issues surrounding reproductive technologies should be addressed at this time in the United States.

Advisory Committees↗