Morten Magelssen

• Karlsen, Heidi Marie; Magelssen, Morten & Thoresen, Lisbeth (2022). Etikkdrøftinger i kommunale etikkomiteer – hva bidrar det til? En studie av helsepersonells erfaringer. Nordisk sygeplejeforskning. ISSN 1892-2678. p. 1–14. doi: 10.18261/nsf.12.2.2.
• Solberg, Carl Tollef; Tranvåg, Eirik Joakim & Magelssen, Morten (2022). Attitudes towards priority setting in the norwegian health care system: a general population survey. BMC Health Services Research. ISSN 1472-6963. 22(1), p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-07806-9. Show summary

  Background: In an ideal world, everyone would receive medical resources in accordance with their needs. In reality, resources are often scarce and have an alternative use. Thus, we are forced to prioritize. Although Norway is one of the leading countries in normative priority setting work, few descriptive studies have been conducted in the country. To increase legitimacy in priority setting, knowledge about laypeople’s attitudes is central. The aim of the study is there- fore to assess the general population’s attitudes towards a broad spectrum of issues pertinent to priority setting in the Norwegian publicly financed health care system. Methods: We developed an electronic questionnaire that was distributed to a representative sample of 2 540 Nor- wegians regarding their attitudes towards priority setting in Norway. A total of 1 035 responded (response rate 40.7%). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Results: A majority (73.0%) of respondents preferred increased funding of publicly financed health services at the expense of other sectors in society. Moreover, a larger share of the respondents suggested either increased taxes (37.0%) or drawing from the Government Pension Fund Global (31.0%) as sources of funding. However, the respond- ents were divided on whether it was acceptable to say “no” to new cancer drugs when the effect is low and the price is high: 38.6% somewhat or fully disagreed that this was acceptable, while 46.5% somewhat or fully agreed. Lastly, 84.0% of the respondents did not find it acceptable that the Norwegian municipalities have different standards for providing care services. Conclusion: Although the survey suggests support for priority setting among Norwegian laypeople, it has also revealed that a significant minority are reluctant to accept it. Keywords: Attitude survey, Empirical ethics, General population, Legitimacy, Norway, Priority setting

• Magelssen, Morten & Karlsen, Heidi Marie (2021). Clinical ethics committees in nursing homes: what good can they do? Analysis of a single case consultation. Nursing Ethics. ISSN 0969-7330. doi: 10.1177/09697330211003269. Full text in Research Archive
• Ewnetu, Demelash Bezabih; Combs Thorsen, Viva; Solbakk, Jan Helge & Magelssen, Morten (2021). Navigating abortion law dilemmas: experiences and attitudes among Ethiopian health care professionals. BMC Medical Ethics. ISSN 1472-6939. 22(1). doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00735-y. Full text in Research Archive
• Magelssen, Morten; Karlsen, Heidi Marie & Thoresen, Lisbeth (2021). Establishing Clinical Ethics Committees in Primary Care: A Study from Norwegian Municipal Care. HEC Forum. ISSN 0956-2737. p. 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10730-021-09461-9. Full text in Research Archive
• Fredheim, Olav Magnus; Materstvedt, Lars Johan; Skulberg, Ingeborg M & Magelssen, Morten (2021). Ought the level of sedation to be reduced during deep palliative sedation? A clinical and ethical analysis. BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care. ISSN 2045-435X. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2021-003081. Full text in Research Archive Show summary

  Background Deep palliative sedation (DPS) is applied as a response to refractory suffering at the end of life when symptoms cannot be relieved in an awake state. DPS entails a dilemma of whether to provide uninterrupted sedation—in which case DPS would turn into deep and continuous palliative sedation (DCPS) —to minimise the risk that any further intolerable suffering will occur or whether to pause sedation to avoid unnecessary sedation. DPS is problematic in that it leaves the patient ‘socially dead’ by eradicating their autonomy and conscious experiences. Aim To perform a normative ethical analysis of whether guidelines should recommend attempting to elevate consciousness during DPS. Design A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and consideration of stakeholders’ interests. Results When DPS is initiated it reflects that symptom relief is valued above the patient’s ability to exercise autonomy and experience social interaction. However, if a decrease in symptom burden occurs, waking could be performed without patients experiencing suffering. Such pausing of deep sedation would satisfy the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Certain patients require substantial dose increases to maintain sedation. Waking such patients risks causing distressing symptoms. This does not happen if deep sedation is kept uninterrupted. Thus, the principle of non-maleficence points towards not pausing sedation. The authors’ clinical ethics analysis demonstrates why other stakeholders’ interests do not appear to override arguments in favour of providing uninterrupted sedation. Conclusion Stopping or pausing DPS should always be considered, but should not be routinely attempted.

• Sævareid, Trygve Johannes Lereim; Pedersen, Reidar & Magelssen, Morten (2021). Positive attitudes to advance care planning – a Norwegian general population survey. BMC Health Services Research. ISSN 1472-6963. 21. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06773-x. Full text in Research Archive
• Magelssen, Morten; Rasmussen, Magnhild; Wallace, Sean Ciaran & Førde, Reidun (2021). Priority setting at the clinical level: the case of nusinersen and the Norwegian national expert group. BMC Medical Ethics. ISSN 1472-6939. 22(1), p. 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00623-5. Full text in Research Archive
• Wikstøl, David; Pedersen, Reidar & Magelssen, Morten (2021). Public attitudes and health law in conflict: somatic vs. mental care, role of next of kin, and the right to refuse treatment and information. BMC Health Services Research. ISSN 1472-6963. 21(1), p. 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05990-0. Full text in Research Archive
• Magelssen, Morten & Shaw, Joseph (2020). Intentions of Physicians and End of Life Care Team. In emmerich, nathan & Gordijn, Bert (Ed.), Contemporary European Perspectives on the Ethics of End of Life Care. Springer Nature. ISSN 978-3-030-40032-3. p. 315–334.

View all works in Cristin

• Hofmann, Bjørn; Oftestad, Eivor Andersen & Magelssen, Morten (2021). Hva vil vi med fosterdiagnostikken? Fosterdiagnostikkens etikk. Cappelen Damm Akademisk. ISBN 9788202693992.

View all works in Cristin

• Søndbø, Mildrid Hagrønning; Magelssen, Morten; Solberg, Carl Tollef; Luther, Iren Mari & Sørlie, Christine Haga (2022). Vi må sette etikken i høysetet. Sykepleien. ISSN 0802-9768. 110(88475), p. e1–e7. doi: 10.4220/Sykepleiens.2022.88475. Show summary

  Alle avdelinger bør ha et tilbud om etikkrefleksjon. Det er langt fra realiteten i dag, viser en undersøkelse. I november 2021 sendte Rådet for sykepleieetikk, kommune- og spesialisthelsetjenesten (KS) og Senter for medisinsk etikk (SME) en spørreundersøkelse til 5853 sykepleieledere i kommune- og spesialisthelsetjenesten. Vi stilte spørsmål om den systematiske etiske refleksjonen: I hvor stor grad eksisterer den? Resultatene var både oppløftende og nedslående. Bare 39 prosent av sykepleielederne svarte at deres ansatte hadde et tilbud om etisk refleksjon. Kun 10 prosent av de spurte besvarte undersøkelsen. Det kan bety at de som faktisk driver etikkarbeid, var mer tilbøyelig til å svare. I så fall er 39 prosent høyere enn det reelle tallet.

• Magelssen, Morten & Solberg, Carl Tollef (2022). Bør dødshjelp legaliseres i Norge? Fem spor i dødshjelpsdebatten.
• Hofmann, Bjørn Morten; Oftestad, Eivor Andersen & Magelssen, Morten (2021). Sniker samfunnets perfeksjonskrav seg inn i livmoren? Adresseavisen. ISSN 0805-3804.
• Magelssen, Morten (2021). Å skape barn i bioteknologiens tidsalder . Inter Medicos. ISSN 0020-5052. 64(3), p. 4–5.
• Magelssen, Morten; Oftestad, Eivor Andersen & Hofmann, Bjørn Morten (2021). "Det frie valgets dilemma" . Klassekampen. ISSN 0805-3839. p. 20–21.
• Oftestad, Eivor Andersen; Magelssen, Morten & Hofmann, Bjørn Morten (2021). "Hvordan skal vi bruke fosterdiagnostikk til det beste for individer og samfunn?". Morgenbladet. ISSN 0805-3847. 9.
• Magelssen, Morten; Karlsen, Heidi Marie; Pedersen, Reidar & Thoresen, Lisbeth (2020). Correction to: Implementing clinical ethics committees as a complex intervention: presentation of a feasibility study in community care (BMC Medical Ethics, (2020), 21, 1, (82), 10.1186/s12910-020-00522-1). BMC Medical Ethics. ISSN 1472-6939. 21(1). doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00534-x.
• Heggestad, Anne Kari Tolo; Førde, Reidun; Pedersen, Reidar & Magelssen, Morten (2020). Prioriteringsutfordringer i helse- og omsorgstjenesten i kommunene under covid-19-pandemien. Tidsskrift for omsorgsforskning. ISSN 2387-5976. 6(1). doi: 10.18261/issn.2387-5984-2020-01-11%20ER.
• Magelssen, Morten; Førde, Reidun; Lillemoen, Lillian & Pedersen, Reidar (2020). Forord. In Magelssen, Morten; Førde, Reidun; Lillemoen, Lillian & Pedersen, Reidar (Ed.), Etikk i helsetjenesten. Gyldendal Akademisk. ISSN 9788205534605. p. 5–7.

View all works in Cristin