Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background The finitude of life presents various bioethical challenges, especially when palliative care is the therapeutic option. The hospital environment for palliative care has ethical peculiarities that need to be better understood, since the literature presents research that is commonly carried out at home.
Objectives This study aims to investigate the fundamental bioethical perspectives for hospital palliative care and to compare these perspectives with those existing in home care.
Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted between March and April 2024. This included observational studies that addressed bioethical perspectives in hospital palliative care. No restrictions were placed on the date of publication or language of the article. This review excluded editorials, intervention studies and articles developed in a home environment.
Results Seven databases and other sources were searched, and 3976 articles were found. Eight studies were selected for qualitative synthesis. A paired review was conducted at all stages. The results indicated that respect for cultural beliefs and values, effective communication and empathy were the most significant bioethical perspectives for hospital palliative care, among the nine other ethical aspects present in the studies. The comparison with bioethical perspectives in the home environment highlighted differences such as privacy and autonomy in the patient’s home.
Conclusions The conclusion allows us to understand that aspects of caring for the person and understanding the illness should be the focus of bioethics in hospital palliative care.
- Palliative Care
- Hospital care
- Hospice care
- Ethics
- Supportive care
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Contributors KRDP: Methodology, data collection, analysis of the data, wrote and edited the manuscript. LZE: Data collection and writing. FR and RN: Supervision, methodology, reviewing and editing the manuscript. All other authors provided critical revision of the manuscript. KRDP is the guarantor of this research and takes overall responsibility for its content.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.