Skip to main content
Log in

Jonsen’s Four Topics Approach as a Framework for Clinical Ethics Consultation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asian Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This was an in-depth qualitative study that looked at the reasons patients were referred to the Clinical Ethics Committee (CEC) of an acute hospital in Singapore and explore how the CEC approached cases referred. Jonsen’s four topics approach was applied in the deliberative process for all cases. A comprehensive review of the case records of 28 patients referred consecutively to the CEC from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014 was conducted. Data and information was collated from the referral forms, patient medical records, and emails communicated among CEC members. A deductive approach to thematic analysis based on Jonsen’s four topics approach was used to analyze the documents. Majority of the patients were male (94%), Chinese (76%), and above 65 years of age (41%). Ethical dilemmas surfaced due to differences in opinion regarding withholding of aggressive management (53%), withdrawing treatment (35%), and ascertaining patient’s autonomy (12%). In most cases, the patients’ preference on end-of-life care was unknown (82%). The main reasons for referral to the CEC were conflicts in clinical management and uncertainty about the decision-making capacity of patients. The CEC members tended to emphasize on “patient preference” more than the other quadrants in the four topics approach as they worked through each case. The Jonsen’s four topics approach lays the groundwork to frame ethical dilemmas that can be easily applied in the clinical setting and is a useful tool for the CEC’s teaching and discussion. Nonetheless, the approach only organizes ethical dilemmas and requires clinicians to apply own judgment in weighing ethical principles. Further studies can look into adapting the four topics approach to suit the local practices and context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • About Living Matters. 2015. Advance Care Planning (ACP). http://livingmatters.sg/advance-care-planning/about-acp, accessed 20 July 2017.

  • Alzheimer’s Disease Association. 2017. Dementia in Singapore. http://alz.org.sg/dementia/singapore/, accessed 26 February 2018.

  • Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2008. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celli, Bartolome, Francesco Blasi, Mina Gaga, Dave Singh, Claus Vogelmeier, Valeria Pegoraro, Nicoletta Caputo, and Alvar Agusti. 2017. Perception of symptoms and quality of life – comparison of patients’ and physicians’ views in the COPD MIRROR study. International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 12: 2189–2196. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S136711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Førde, Rediun, Reidar Pedersen, and Victoria Akre. 2008. Clinicians’ evaluation of clinical ethics consultations in Norway: a qualitative study. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 11 (1): 17–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Ellen, Sarah Myers, and Robert A. Pearlman. 2007. Ethics consultation in United States hospitals: a national survey. The American Journal of Bioethics 7 (2): 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, Nicola K., Gemma Heath, Elaine Cameron, Sabrina Rashid, and Sabi Redwood. 2013. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13: 117. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillick, Muriel R. 2000. Rethinking the role of tube feeding in patients with advanced dementia. The New England Journal of Medicine 342 (3): 206–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunning, Jennifer, and Søren Holm. 2005. Ethics, law and society. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, Heidi A., Ju-Whei Lee, Joan H. Schiller, Leora Horn, Lynne I. Wagner, Victor Tsu-Shih Chang, and Michael J. Fisch. 2013. Clinician perceptions of care difficulty, quality of life, and symptom reports for lung cancer patients: an analysis from the Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns (SOAPP) study. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 8 (12): 1474–1483. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JTO.0000437501.83763.5d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansky, Maximiliane, Gabriella Marx, Friedemann Nauck, and Bernd Alt-Epping. 2013. Physicians’ nurses expectations and objections toward a clinical ethics committee. Nursing Ethics 20 (7): 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733013478308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, Albert R., Mark Siegler, and William J. Winslade. 1982. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, Joel D., and Frank E. Mott. 2014. Difficult conversations: from diagnosis to death. The Ochsner Journal 14: 712–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marugg, Lindsey, Marie-Noelle Atkinson, and Ashley Fernandes. 2014. The five-box method: the “four-box method” for the Catholic physician. The Linacre Quarterly 81 (4): 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quill, Timothy E., and Robert Holloway. 2011. Time-limited trials near the end of life. The Journal of the American Medical Association 306 (13): 1483–1484. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, Larissa V., Daniel S. Blander, Frederick Dorey, Shlomo Raz, and Philippe Zimmern. 2003. Discrepancy in patient and physician perception of patient’s quality of life related to urinary symptoms. Urology 62 (1): 49–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slowther, Anne, Bunch Chris, Brian Woodnough, and Tony Hope. 2001. Clinical ethics support services in the UK: an investigation of the current provision of ethics support to health professionals in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (1): 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumann, John H., and David Alfandre. 2008. Clinical ethical decision making: the four topics approach. Seminars in Medical Practice 11: 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seccareccia, Dori, Kirsten Wentlandt, Nanor Kevork, Kevin Workentin, Susan Blacker, Lucia Gagliese, Daphna Grossman, and Camilla Zimmermann. 2015. Communication and quality of care on palliative care units: a qualitative study. Journal of Palliative Medicine 18 (9): 758–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singapore Statutes. 2018. Mental Capacity Act. https://statutes.agc.gov.sg/Act/MCA2008, accessed 26 February 2018.

  • Whitehead, Jessica M., Daniel K. Sokol, Deborah Bowman, and Phillip Sedgwick. 2009. Consultation activities of clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom: an empirical study and wake-up call committees in the United Kingdom. Postgraduate Medical Journal 85: 451–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, Dominic J., and Julian Savulescu. 2011. Knowing when to stop: futility in the intensive care unit. Current Opinion in Anesthesiology 24 (2): 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0b013e328343c5af.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woelk, Cornelius J. 2008. Management of hope. Canadian Family Physician 54 (9): 1243–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ysrraelit, Maria C., Marcela P. Fiol, Maria I. Gaitán, and Jorge Correale. 2018. Quality of life assessment in multiple sclerosis: different perception between patients and neurologists. Frontiers in Neurology 8: 729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2017.00729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui Jin Toh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toh, H.J., Low, J.A., Lim, Z.Y. et al. Jonsen’s Four Topics Approach as a Framework for Clinical Ethics Consultation. ABR 10, 37–51 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-0047-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-0047-y

Keywords

Navigation