In 2003 Turkey introduced the Health Transition Program to develop easily accessible, high-quality, and effective healthcare services for the population. This program, like other health reforms, has three primary goals: to improve health status, to enhance financial protection, and to ensure patients’ satisfaction. Although there is considerable literature on the anticipated positive results of such health reforms, little evidence exists on their current effectiveness. One of the main initiatives of this health reform is a performance-based supplementary payment system, an additional payment healthcare professionals receive each month in addition to their regular salaries. This system may cause some ethical problems. Physicians have an ethical duty to provide high-quality care to each patient; however, pay-for-performance and other programs that create strong incentives for high-quality care set up a potential conflict between this duty and the competing interest of complying with a performance measure.

Educators in bioethics have struggled to find valid and reliable assessments that transcend the “reproduction of knowledge” to target more important skill sets. This manuscript reports on the process of developing and grading a minimal-competence comprehensive examination in a bioethics master’s degree program. We describe educational theory and practice for the creation and deployment of scoring rubrics for high-stakes performance assessments that reduce scoring inconsistencies. The rubric development process can also benefit the program by building consensus among stakeholders regarding program goals and student outcomes.

We describe the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy as a mechanism for rubric design and provide an example of how we applied that taxonomy to define pass/fail cut scores. Details about domains of assessment and writing descriptors of performance are also presented. Despite the laborious work required to create a scoring rubric, we found the effort to be worthwhile for our program.

Although ethics is an essential component of undergraduate medical education, research suggests that current medical ethics curricula face considerable challenges in improving students’ ethical reasoning. This article discusses these challenges and introduces a promising new mode of graduate and professional ethics instruction for overcoming them. We begin by describing common ethics curricula, focusing in particular on established problems with current approaches. Next, we describe a novel method of ethics education and assessment for medical students that we have devised: the Medical Ethics Bowl (MEB). Finally, we suggest the pedagogical advantages of the MEB when compared to other ethics curricula.

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is increasingly recognized as a growing public health issue worldwide. Although more research is needed on both the diagnosis and treatment of FASD, and a broader and more culturally diverse range of services are needed to support those who suffer from FASD and their families, both research and practice for FASD raise significant ethical issues. In response, from the point of view of both research and clinical neuroethics, we provide a framework that emphasizes the need to maximize benefits and minimize harm, promote justice, and foster respect for persons within a global context.

Electronic health records, data sharing, big data, data mining, and secondary use are enabling exciting opportunities for improving health and healthcare while also exacerbating privacy concerns. Two court cases about selling prescription data, the Sorrell case in the U.S. and the Source case in the U.K., raise questions of what constitutes “privacy” and “public interest”; they present an opportunity for ethical analysis of data privacy, commodifying data for sale and ownership, combining public and private data, data for research, and transparency and consent. These interwoven issues involve discussion of big data benefits and harms and touch on common dualities of the individual versus the aggregate or the public interest, research (or, more broadly, innovation) versus privacy, individual versus institutional power, identification versus identity and authentication, and virtual versus real individuals and contextualized information. Transparency, flexibility, and accountability are needed for assessing appropriate, judicious, and ethical data uses and users, as some are more compatible with societal norms and values than others.

Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) and reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) are intertwined and coevolving. These technologies are increasingly used to fulfill socially and culturally framed requests, for example, “family balancing,” or to enable postmenopausal women or homosexual couples to have genetically linked children. The areas of ART and RGT are replete with ethical issues, because different social practices and legal regulations, as well as economic inequalities within and among countries, create vulnerable groups and, therefore, the potential for exploitation. This article provides an overview of the ART and RGT landscape in Pakistan and analyzes the available online content addressing Pakistani citizens and international clients. We explored the topic in view of socioeconomic challenges in Pakistan, particularly deeply rooted poverty, lack of education, gender discrimination, and absence of regulation. As online information given by ART and RGT providers is readily available and could easily raise false hopes, make use of discriminatory statements with regard to women, and promote gender selection to meet sociocultural expectations, it should be subjected to quality control.

KS is a 76-year-old Burmese woman who presented to the hospital with right-sided weakness that had begun two days prior. Although KS had been diagnosed earlier with dementia and had a medical history of stroke, she was living at a nursing home and was able to walk on her own and use her right arm to feed herself. Since her last stroke three years ago, she had also developed aphasia, and her speech has been minimal. During her current hospitalization, KS was found to have a cerebral hemorrhage, but after consultation with neurosurgery, the team determined that no medical interventions were available, and a higher level of care was not required. She also presented with other medical conditions, including severe hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and depression. The patient’s blood pressure has remained high. She has now failed a swallow evaluation and is refusing the insertion of a nasogastric feeding tube. The patient has a younger sister who believes, from a cultural perspective, that only the patient should make her medical decisions. As a result, she feels helpless in assisting the team. The medical team has asked for an ethics consultation to direct the patient’s care and to guide decisionmaking.

An individual’s hesitance or outright refusal to function as a substitute decisionmaker creates a number of challenges for treating teams, as is highlighted by the case of KS. It is not uncommon for individuals who suddenly find themselves in the role of substitute decisionmaker (SDM) to experience feelings of inadequacy or of being overwhelmed. The natural apprehension that comes with realizing, or being informed, that you are now responsible for providing or refusing consent on behalf of a loved one is often exacerbated by the accompanying circumstances. Even though there are movements afoot to encourage and support advance care planning and the inclusion of those who will become SDMs in conversations about values and wishes, there is still much work to be done. Although the case as presented does not provide information regarding what, if any, processes have taken place prior to the current hospital admission with regard to including the patient’s sister in discussions about future circumstances, it is clear that the sister feels unprepared to assume the role being thrust upon her. What, then, does a clinical ethics consultation have to offer in such situations? The following discussion highlights three ways in which ethics consultation can be of value to both the treating team and the identified SDM: ethics consultation (1) helps the care team and SDM navigate the regulatory landscape, (2) supports the treating team, and (3) supports the SDM.

This case illustrates the dilemma that occurs when a patient refuses treatment. When a patient refuses recommended interventions, it can cause much distress among the medical team and family. On the surface, the ethical issue appears to be in regard to treatment refusal. However, when we look deeper, it becomes evident that the question is truly about whether the patient has the ability to make this treatment decision, given her worsening dementia, recent hemorrhage, and depression. In this case, an essential component of an ethics consultation would be to assess this patient’s decisionmaking capacity to determine if her refusals are informed. This case has another level of complexity. If the patient does not have decisionmaking capacity, then who would be willing to serve in the role of surrogate decisionmaker? The case raises several ethical questions and thus makes directing a patient’s care and decisionmaking challenging.

Upstream engagement is commonly regarded as necessary for the smooth implementation of new technologies, particularly when there is an impact on health. Is the healthcare context in Australia geared toward such public engagement? There are established engagement practices for issues of healthcare resourcing, for example; however, the situation becomes more complex with the introduction of a new technology such as nanomedicine.