Academic literature on the topic 'Ophthalmic plastic surgery – Moral and ethical aspects'

Abstract Objective The present study aimed to explore the opinion and ethical consideration of vulvovaginal aesthetics procedures (VVAPs) among health professionals and medical students in Saudi Arabia. Methods This is a cross-sectional study performed between January 2020 and April 2020. Data was collected through electronic media, WhatsApp, and emails. The results were analyzed by applying the Students t-test, and correlations were considered significant if they presented a p-value < 0.05. Results There is significant demand to educate doctors, health professionals, medical students, and gynecologists for the VVAPs to have a solid foundation, justified indications, and knowledge about various aesthetic options. Although female doctors, medical students, young doctors, and gynecologists have more knowledge about VVAPs, all health professionals ought to be aware of recent trends in vulvovaginal aesthetics (VVA). The present analysis determined that VVA should be under the domain of gynecologists, rather than under that of plastic surgeons, general surgeons, and cosmetologists. The majority of the participants considered that vaginal rejuvenation, “G-spot” augmentation, clitoral surgery, and hymenoplasty are not justifiable on medical grounds. Conclusion The decision to opt for different techniques for vaginal tightening and revitalization should be taken very carefully, utilizing the shared decision-making approach. Ethical aspects and moral considerations are important key factors before embarking in the VVAPs purely for cosmetic reasons. Further research is required to determine the sexual, psychological, and body image outcomes for women who underwent elective VVAPs. Moreover, medical educators must consider VVAPs as part of the undergraduate and postgraduate medical curriculum.

Abstract Background In gender-affirming medical care (GAMC), ethical challenges in decision-making are ubiquitous. These challenges are becoming more pressing due to exponentially increasing referrals, politico-legal contestation, and divergent normative views regarding decisional roles and models. Little is known, however, about what ethical challenges related to decision-making healthcare professionals (HCPs) themselves face in their daily work in GAMC and how these relate to, for example, the subjective nature of Gender Incongruence (GI), the multidisciplinary character of GAMC and the role HCPs play in assessing GI and eligibility for interventions. Given the relevance and urgency of these questions, we conducted a qualitative study among HCPs providing GAMC to transgender adults in the Netherlands. Methods In this qualitative research, we conducted 11 semi-structured interviews between May 2020 and February 2021 with HCPs (six mental health professionals, two HCPs in endocrinology, two in plastic surgery, and one in nursing) working in two distinct GAMC settings. We purposively sampled for professional background and years of experience in GAMC. We analyzed our interview data using thematic analysis. As some respondents were more inclined to speak about what should or ought to be done to arrive at good or right decision-making, we identified both ethical challenges and norms. Furthermore, in our analysis, we differentiated between respondents’ explicit and implicit ethical challenges and norms and ascertained the specific context in which these challenges emerged. Results Respondents’ ethical challenges and norms centered on (1) dividing and defining decisional roles and bounds, (2) negotiating decision-making in a (multidisciplinary) team, and (3) navigating various decision-making temporalities. These themes arose in the context of uncertainties regarding (1) GAMC’s guidelines, evidence, and outcomes, as well as (2) the boundaries and assessment of GI. Conclusions This interview study provides detailed empirical insight into both the explicit and implicit ethical challenges that HCPs experience and their ethical norms regarding decision-making. It also describes how uncertainties and (implicit) normativities concerning GAMC and GI pre-structure the moral environment in which these challenges and norms manifest. We provide normative reflections and recommendations on handling these ethical challenges in a way that is sensitive to the context in which they arise.