Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
5,673
result(s) for
"Charities - ethics"
Sort by:
Physicians as Fundraisers: Medical Philanthropy and the Doctor-Patient Relationship
Lisa Lehmann and colleagues discuss how “grateful patient” programs that solicit donations from wealthy individuals who receive care may be problematic for physicians and propose policies that mitigate these risks. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Journal Article
Communities as ‘renewable energy’ for healthcare services? a multimethods study into the form, scale and role of voluntary support for community hospitals in England
ObjectiveTo examine the forms, scale and role of community and voluntary support for community hospitals in England.DesignA multimethods study. Quantitative analysis of Charity Commission data on levels of volunteering and voluntary income for charities supporting community hospitals. Nine qualitative case studies of community hospitals and their surrounding communities, including interviews and focus groups.SettingCommunity hospitals in England and their surrounding communities.ParticipantsCharity Commission data for 245 community hospital Leagues of Friends. Interviews with staff (89), patients (60), carers (28), volunteers (35), community representatives (20), managers and commissioners (9). Focus groups with multidisciplinary teams (8 groups across nine sites, involving 43 respondents), volunteers (6 groups, 33 respondents) and community stakeholders (8 groups, 54 respondents).ResultsCommunities support community hospitals through: human resources (average=24 volunteers a year per hospital); financial resources (median voluntary income = £15 632); practical resources through services and activities provided by voluntary and community groups; and intellectual resources (eg, consultation and coproduction). Communities provide valuable supplementary resources to the National Health Service, enhancing community hospital services, patient experience, staff morale and volunteer well-being. Such resources, however, vary in level and form from hospital to hospital and over time: voluntary income is on the decline, as is membership of League of Friends, and it can be hard to recruit regular, active volunteers.ConclusionsCommunities can be a significant resource for healthcare services, in ways which can enhance patient experience and service quality. Harnessing that resource, however, is not straight forward and there is a perception that it might be becoming more difficult questioning the extent to which it can be considered sustainable or ‘renewable’.
Journal Article
When psychiatric diagnosis becomes an overworked tool
A psychiatric diagnosis today is asked to serve many functions—clinical, research, medicolegal, delimiting insurance coverage, service planning, defining eligibility for state benefits (eg, for unemployment or disability), as well as providing rallying points for pressure groups and charities. These contexts require different notions of diagnosis to tackle the particular problem such a designation is meant to solve. In a number of instances, a ‘status’ definition (ie, a diagnostic label or category) is employed to tackle what is more appropriately seen as requiring a ‘functional’ approach (ie, how well the person is able to meet the demands of a test of performance requiring certain capabilities, aptitudes or skills). In these instances, a diagnosis may play only a subsidiary role. Some examples are discussed: the criteria for involuntary treatment; the determination of criminal responsibility; and, assessing entitlements to state benefits. I suggest that the distinction between ‘status’ versus ‘function’ has not been given sufficient weight in discussions of diagnosis. It is in the functional domain that some of the problematic relationships between clinical psychiatry and the social institutions with which it rubs shoulders are played out. A status, signified by a diagnosis, has often been encumbered with demands for which it is poorly equipped. It is a reductive way of solving problems of management, allocation or disposal for which a functional approach should be given greater weight.
Journal Article
Ethical, legal and professional issues arising from social media coverage by UK Helicopter Emergency Medical Services
ObjectiveSocial media (SoMe) are gaining increasing acceptance among, and use by, healthcare service deliverers and workers. UK Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) use SoMe to deliver service information and to fundraise, among other purposes. This article examines UK HEMS use of SoMe between January and February 2014 to determine the extent of adoption and to highlight trends in use.MethodsThe database of the Association of Air Ambulances, crosschecked with UK Emergency Aviation, was used to identify flying, charitable UK HEMS. This search identified 28 UK HEMS, of which 24 services met the criteria for selection for review. Using information harvested from the public domain, we then systematically documented SoMe use by the services.ResultsSoMe use by UK HEMS is extensive but not uniform. All selected UK HEMS maintained websites with blogs, as well as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia and JustGiving profiles, with the majority of services using Ebay for Charity, LinkedIn and YouTube. Some HEMS also held a presence on Pinterest, Google+, Instagram and Flickr, with a minority of services maintaining their own Rich Site Summary (RSS) feed.ConclusionsThe SoMe adopted, while varied, allowed for increased, and different forms of, information delivery by HEMS to the public, often in real time. Such use, though, risks breaching patient confidentiality and data protection requirements, especially when information is viewed cumulatively across platforms. There is an urgent need for the continued development of guidance in this unique setting to protect patients while UK HEMS promote and fundraise for their charitable activities.
Journal Article
Better vaguely right than precisely wrong in effective altruism: the problem of marginalism
Effective altruism (EA) requires that when we donate to charity, we maximize the beneficial impact of our donations. While we are in broad sympathy with EA, we raise a practical problem for EA, which is that there is a crucial empirical presupposition implicit in its charity assessment methods which is false in many contexts. This is the presupposition that the magnitude of the benefits (or harms) generated by some charity vary continuously in the scale of the intervention performed. We characterize a wide class of cases where this assumption fails, and then draw out the normative implications of this fact.
Journal Article
Faith, hype, and charity
Does it matter if charities exaggerate for the sake of free publicity?
Journal Article
