Search

Background: As routinely collected patient data have become increasingly accessible over the years, more attention has been directed at the ethics of using such data for research. Patient data is often available to researchers through patient registries that typically collect data of patients with a specific condition. While ethical guidelines for using patient data are presented frequently in the literature, it is currently unknown how patient registries implement the recommendations from these guidelines in practice and how they communicate their practices. In this project, we assessed to what extent a sample of 51 patient registries provides information about a range of ethics practices., Methods: We searched for patient registries in the resource database of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Our ethics reporting checklist was based on three sources: the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guide for good registry practices, and a systematic review of the principles and norms related to health data sharing by Kalkman and colleagues. The checklist includes 26 questions about five ethics components: governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access., Results: We found substantial heterogeneity in the way patient registries provide information about ethics practices. Patient registries often mentioned their governance structure and any potential conflicts of interests but typically did not describe the responsibilities and rights allocated to their funders. Information about informed consent was often provided to patients, but the available documents often lacked relevant information like the benefits and risks of participation. Privacy and data protection and use-and-access policies were typically discussed but not very concretely., Conclusions: We conclude that registries typically provide information about key ethics practices such as governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access procedures, but this information is often not as detailed as recommended in existing guidelines. The ethics reporting checklist we designed could be helpful for the ethical assessments of patient registries and other types of registries in the future as well as for self-assessment of registries aiming to improve their ethics practices., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Many if not most sperm donors in the early years of IVF donated under conditions of anonymity. There is, however, a growing awareness of the ethical cost of withholding identifying parental information from donor children. Today, anonymous donation is illegal in many jurisdictions, and some jurisdictions have gone as far as retrospectively invalidating contracts whereby donors were guaranteed anonymity. This article provides a critical evaluation of the ethics and legality of anonymous donation. We defend Australian and British legislation that has outlawed donor anonymity, and we argue for the establishment of a central registry that provides donor children with the ability to easily and reliably access identifying information about their donor parents., (© 2023. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd.)

The Risk Assessment Program (RAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA) is a multi-generational prospective cohort, enhanced for personal and family history of cancer, consisting of over 10,000 individuals for whom data on personal and family history of cancer, risk factors, genetic and genomic data, health behaviors, and biospecimens are available. The RAP has a broad research agenda including the characterization of genes with known or potential relevance to cancer, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and their contribution to clinically useful risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. Increasingly, this body of research is identifying genetic changes which may have clinical significance for RAP research participants, leading us to confront the issue of whether to return genetic results emerging from research laboratories. This review will describe some of the important fundamental points that must be debated as we develop a paradigm for return of research results. The key issues to address as the scientific community moves toward adopting a policy of return of research results include the best criteria for determining which results to offer, the consent document components necessary to ensure that the participant makes a truly informed decision about receiving their results, and associated logistical and cost challenges. See all articles in this Special Collection Honoring Paul F. Engstrom, MD, Champion of Cancer Prevention ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Wellness projects are large scale studies of healthy individuals through extensive laboratory and other testing. The "Hundred Person Wellness Study", was one of the first to report results and lessons from its approach and these lessons can be applied to other wellness projects which are being undertaken by major companies and other organizations. In the "Hundred Person Wellness Study", investigators from the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) sequenced the genome, and analyzed the blood, saliva, urine and microbiome of 108 healthy participants every 3 months, for 9 months, to look for subtle changes signifying the transition to disease. We discuss some of the possible shortcomings of this approach; questioning the need to "improve" biomarker levels, excessive testing leading to over-diagnosis and over-treatment, expected results and improvements, selection of tests, problems with whole genome sequencing and speculations on therapeutic measures. We hope this discussion will lead to a continued evaluation of wellness interventions, leading to strategies that truly benefit patients within the constraint of limited health care resources.

Objectives: This international, multicentre study will inform the final data collection tools and processes which will comprise the first international, clinical research registry for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). This study will: (a) test the feasibility and acceptability of collecting outcome measurement data using a patient reported, questionnaire core measurement set (COMPACT [Core Outcome Measurement set for complex regional PAin syndrome Clinical sTudies]); and (b) test and refine an electronic data management system to collect and manage the data., Methods: A maximum of 240 adults, meeting the Budapest diagnostic clinical criteria for CRPS type I or II, will be recruited across eight countries. The COMPACT questionnaire will be completed on two occasions: at baseline (T1) and 6 months later (T2). At T2, participants will choose to complete COMPACT using a paper or electronic version. Participants will be asked to feed back on their experience of completing COMPACT via a questionnaire. A separate questionnaire will ask clinicians to feed back their experience of data collection., Analysis: The study is not aiming to derive statistically significant data but to ascertain the practicalities of collecting data, using the COMPACT questionnaire set, across a range of different cultures and populations. At the end of the study, a single workshop will be convened to review the findings and agree the final documents and processes for the international registry., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background Regulators increasingly rely on registries for decision making related to high-risk medical devices in the United States. However, the limited uniform standards for registries may create substantial variability in registry implementation and utility to regulators. We surveyed the current landscape of US cardiovascular device registries and chart the extent of inconsistency in goals, administration, enrollment procedures, and approach to data access. Methods and Results A systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines identified studies (1995-2017) referencing cardiovascular device registries with a US-based institution. Registries were then evaluated by reviewing associated articles and websites. Extracted data included device type, primary scientific aim(s), funding, stewardship (eg, administration of registry procedures), enrollment procedures, informed consent process, and mechanisms to access data for research. The 138 cardiovascular device registries in the cohort covered devices addressing interventional cardiology (65.9%), arrhythmias (15.2%), heart failure (10.1%), and valvular disease (10.1%). While the majority (55.8%) were industry-funded, stewardship was predominantly overseen by academic centers (74.0%). Most registry participation was voluntary (77.5%), but a substantial minority (19.7%) were required as a condition of device implantation. Informed consent requirements varied widely, with written consent required in only 55.1% of registries. Registry data were primarily accessible only to stewards (84.1%), with 13.8% providing pathways for external applications. Conclusions The majority of cardiovascular device registries were funded privately under the auspices of academic institutions, which set the rules for data access. The substantial variation between cardiovascular device registries suggests a role for regulators to further strengthen guidelines to improve quality, consistency, and ethical standards.

It is often unclear to the clinical investigator whether observational studies should be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC), mostly because, in general, no active or additional interventions are performed. Moreover, obtaining an informed consent under these circumstances may be challenging, either because these are very large epidemiological registries, or the subject may no longer be alive, is too ill to consent, or is impossible to contact after being discharged. Although observational studies do not involve interventions, they entail ethical concerns, including threats such as breaches in confidentiality and autonomy, and respect for basic rights of the research subjects according to the good clinical practices. In this context, in addition to their main function as evaluators from an ethical, methodological, and regulatory point of view, the RECs serve as mediators between the research subjects, looking after their basic rights, and the investigator or institution, safeguarding them from both legal and unethical perils that the investigation could engage, by ensuring that all procedures are performed following the international standards of care for research. The aim of this manuscript is to provide information on each type of study and its risks, along with actions to prevent such risks, and the function of RECs in each type of study., (Copyright: © 2019 Permanyer.)

Sweden has a long tradition of being at the forefront of the management of extremely preterm infants. In this article, we explore the historical background, ethical discussions, and evidence from national surveys combined with data from quality registers that form the background of the current Swedish guidelines for the care of extremely preterm infants. The current Swedish national guidelines suggest providing active care for preterm infants from 23 weeks' gestation and considering active care from 22 weeks' gestation. The survival of infants in gestational weeks 22 and 23 has increased and now exceed 50% and 60%, respectively; importantly, the Swedish proactive approach to care at the border of viability has not resulted in an increased proportion of functional impairment among survivors., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: There is a growing interest in aggregating more biomedical and patient data into large health data sets for research and public benefits. However, collecting and processing patient data raises new ethical issues regarding patient's rights, social justice and trust in public institutions. The aim of this empirical study is to gain an in-depth understanding of the awareness of possible ethical risks and corresponding obligations among those who are involved in projects using patient data, i.e. healthcare professionals, regulators and policy makers., Methods: We used a qualitative design to examine Swiss healthcare stakeholders' experiences and perceptions of ethical challenges with regard to patient data in real-life settings where clinical registries are sponsored, created and/or used. A semi-structured interview was carried out with 22 participants (11 physicians, 7 policy-makers, 4 ethical committee members) between July 2014 and January 2015. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using a thematic method derived from Grounded Theory., Results: All interviewees were concerned as a matter of priority with the needs of legal and operating norms for the collection and use of data, whereas less interest was shown in issues regarding patient agency, the need for reciprocity, and shared governance in the management and use of clinical registries' patient data. This observed asymmetry highlights a possible tension between public and research interests on the one hand, and the recognition of patients' rights and citizens' involvement on the other., Conclusions: The advocation of further health-related data sharing on the grounds of research and public interest, without due regard for the perspective of patients and donors, could run the risk of fostering distrust towards healthcare data collections. Ultimately, this could diminish the expected social benefits. However, rather than setting patient rights against public interest, new ethical approaches could strengthen both concurrently. On a normative level, this study thus provides material from which to develop further ethical reflection towards a more cooperative approach involving patients and citizens in the governance of their health-related big data.

Objectives: Genomic information will increasingly be used to aid in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Several national initiatives are paving the way for this new reality, while also promoting new models of participant-engaged research. We compare the opinions of research participants in a cancer registry, human genetic researchers, and institutional review board (IRB) professionals about the return of individual-level genetic results (ROR)., Methods: Online surveys were administered to participants in a cancer registry (n = 450) and overlapping questions were compared to our previous online national surveys of human genetic researchers (n = 351) and IRB professionals (n = 208)., Results: The majority of respondents agreed that researchers have an obligation to return individual results when they would affect a participant's health. While 77% of registry participants favored ROR if the researcher feels the participant might be interested in the results, only 30% of the IRB professionals and 25% of the genetic researchers agreed with this statement., Conclusions: Significant differences emerged between the stakeholder groups in several ROR scenarios. Policies that are acceptable to participants, researchers and IRBs, and that ensure human subject protections and facilitate research are needed., (© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objectives: The decision to make protocols of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publicly accessible by leading journals was a landmark event in clinical trial reporting. Here, we compared primary outcomes defined in protocols with those in publications describing the trials and in trial registration., Study Design and Setting: We identified phase III RCTs published between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015, in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and The BMJ with available protocols. Consistency in primary outcomes between protocols and registries (articles) was evaluated., Results: We identified 299 phase III RCTs with available protocols in this analysis. Out of them, 25 trials (8.4%) had some discrepancy for primary outcomes between publications and protocols. Types of discrepancies included protocol-defined primary outcome reported as nonprimary outcome in publication (11 trials, 3.7%), protocol-defined primary outcome omitted in publication (10 trials, 3.3%), new primary outcome introduced in publication (8 trials, 2.7%), protocol-defined nonprimary outcome reported as primary outcome in publication (4 trials, 1.3%), and different timing of assessment of primary outcome (4 trials, 1.3%). Out of trials with discrepancies in primary outcome, 15 trials (60.0%) had discrepancies that favored statistically significant results. Registration could be seen as a valid surrogate of protocol in 237 of 299 trials (79.3%) with regard to primary outcome., Conclusion: Despite unrestricted public access to protocols, selective outcome reporting persists in a small fraction of phase III RCTs. Only studies from four leading journals were included, which may cause selection bias and limit the generalizability of this finding., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research into personal health data holds great potential not only for improved treatment but also for economic growth. In these years many countries are developing policies aimed at facilitating such research often under the banner of 'big data'. A central point of debate is whether the secondary use of health data requires informed consent if the data is anonymised. In 2013 the Danish Minister of Health established a new register collecting data about all ritual male childhood circumcisions in Denmark. The main purpose of the register was to enable future research into the consequences of ritual circumcision., Discussion: This article is a study into the case of the Danish Circumcision Registry. We show that such a registry may lead to various forms of harm such as 1) overreaching social pressure, 2) stigmatization, 3) medicalization of a religious practice, 4) discrimination, and 5) polarised research, and that a person may therefore have a strong and legitimate interest in deciding whether or not such data should be collected and/or used in research. This casts doubt on the claim that the requirement of informed consent could and should be waived for all types of secondary research into registries. We finally sketch a new model of informed consent - Meta consent - aimed at striking a balance between the interests in promoting research and at the same time protecting the individual. Research participants may have a strong and legitimate interest in deciding whether or not their data should be collected and used for registry-based research whether or not their data is anonymised.

Optimizing care in medical toxicology necessitates designing and conducting ethical research. Nevertheless, the context of medical toxicology can make clinical research ethically challenging for a variety of reasons: medical toxicology is typified by relative rare conditions; making precise and rapid diagnoses is often fraught with uncertainty; emergent and urgent clinical exigencies make consent difficult or impossible; and some exposures are stigmatized or related to illegal activities that can compromise collecting accurate data from patients. In this paper, we examine some of the ethical issues in medical toxicology research that are especially salient in effort to promote optimal research in the field. The particular issues to be addressed are as follows: (1) rare conditions and orphan agents, (2) randomization and control arms, (3) inclusion and exclusion criteria, (4) outcome measures, (5) consent, (6) confidentiality, (7) registries, (8) oversight, and (9) transparency and reporting. Thinking about these ethical issues prospectively will help researchers and clinicians appropriately navigate them.

Numerous US businesses that engage in direct-to-consumer advertising of stem cell interventions that are not US FDA-approved also recruit clients by listing 'pay-to-participate' studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov . Individuals considering enrolling in such studies and NIH officials responsible for overseeing the database need to be aware that some businesses are using the registry to promote unapproved stem cell interventions that study subjects are charged to receive. Inclusion of such studies in ClinicalTrials.gov reveals that the database needs better screening tools. In particular, screening should evaluate whether studies submitted to the registry have been reviewed and permitted to proceed by the FDA in the case of clinical studies requiring FDA clearance in addition to institutional review board approval.

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) serves to collect data on organ transplants performed in the United States. Although the infectious diseases data are limited and include mostly pretransplant serologies and other nonspecific infection-related outcomes, this multicenter data collection allows for insightful national data and the ability to monitor trends over time. We reviewed the published concise reports for each organ type in SRTR reports containing data from 2005 to 2014, and summarized our findings with respect to cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, general infection, and prophylaxis. Our review highlights a few developments. While rates of donor-recipient CMV serology combinations remain fairly constant over time, there are generally more seronegative donors and recipients among living donor transplants. There has been a reduction in PTLD for pediatric transplant recipients. There has also been a slight reduction in anti-HBV core antibody-positive donor organs and stable reporting of HCV-positive donor organs and HIV-positive recipients., (© 2017 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Purpose: Recruitment to trials is often difficult. Many trials fail to meet recruitment targets resulting in underpowered studies which waste resources and the time of those who participated. While there is evidence that many people are willing to take part in research, particularly if it involves a condition from which they suffer, researchers are unable to easily contact such people often relying on busy clinicians to identify them. Many clinicians perceive themselves as too busy to take part in research activities. The Scottish Health Research Register SHARE adopts an approach which asks the public to consent to their data held in National Health Service databases to be used to determine their suitability for research projects. Additionally, participants can consent for spare blood, left after routine venepuncture to be automatically identified in the laboratory and stored for future research studies., Participants: Anyone over the age of 16 years in Scotland can participate. Participants are approached through a range of methods including directly at outpatient clinics and general practitioners practices, leaflets with hospital letters and personal email from employers., Findings to Date: SHARE has recruited around 130 000 people. SHARE has demonstrated that it can quickly and efficiently recruit to studies, over 20 until now. In addition, it can be used to administer questionnaire studies by email and recruit to patient and public involvement groups., Future Plans: SHARE continues to steadily recruit with the ambition of eventually achieving 1 000 000 people in Scotland. We are steadily increasing the number of data sets we use for identifying participants. We are adding a mobile app which will facilitate dissemination about research and allow the collection of physiological and activity data if desired. We anticipate that SHARE will soon become the main source of health research recruitment in Scotland., Competing Interests: BMcK, FMS and CNAP are founders of SHARE., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Problem: Efforts to evaluate and optimize the effectiveness of medical education have been limited by the difficulty of designing medical education research. Longitudinal, epidemiological views of educational outcomes can help overcome limitations, but these approaches require "bigger data"-more learners, sources, and time points. The rich data institutions collect on students and residents can be mined, however, ethical and practical barriers to using these data must first be overcome., Approach: In 2008, the authors established the Research on Medical Education Outcomes (ROMEO) Registry, an educational data registry modeled after patient registries. New York University School of Medicine students, residents, and fellows provide consent for routinely collected educational, performance, quality improvement, and clinical practice data to be compiled into a deidentified, longitudinal database. As of January 2015, this registry included 1,225 residents and fellows across 12 programs (71% consent rate) and 841 medical students (86% consent rate). Procedures ensuring voluntary informed consent are essential to ethical enrollment and data use. Substantial resources are required to provide access to and manage the data., Outcomes: The registry supports educational scholarship. Seventy-two studies using registry data have been presented or published. These focus on evaluating the curriculum, quality of care, and measurement quality and on assessing needs, competencies, skills development, transfer of skills to practice, remediation patterns, and links between education and patient outcomes., Next Steps: The authors are working to integrate assessment of relevant outcomes into the curriculum, maximize both the quantity and quality of the data, and expand the registry across institutions.

Objectives: To assess the potential role of clinical trial (CT) registries and other resources available to research ethics committees (RECs) in the evaluation of complex CT protocols in low-income and middle-income countries., Methodology: Using a case study approach, the authors examined the decision-making process of a REC in Argentina and its efforts to use available resources to decide on a complex protocol. We also analysed the information in the USA and other CT registries and consulted 24 CT experts in seven countries., Findings: Information requested by the Argentinean REC from other national RECs and ethics' experts was not useful to verify the adequacy of the REC's decision whether or not to approve the CT. The responses from the national regulatory agency and the sponsor were not helpful either. The identification of international resources that could assist was beyond the REC's capability. The information in the USA and other CT registries is limited, and at times misleading; and its accuracy is not verified by register keepers., Discussion and Conclusion: RECs have limited access to experts and institutions that could assist them in their deliberations. Sponsors do not always answer RECs' request for information to properly conduct the ethical and methodological assessment of CT protocols. The usefulness of the CT registries is curtailed by the lack of appropriate codes and by data errors. Information about reasons for rejection, withdrawal or suspension of the trial should be included in the registries. Establishing formal channels of communication among national and foreign RECs and with independent international reference centres could strengthen the ethical review of CT protocols., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: It is a recognized child right to acquire a name and a nationality, and birth registration may be necessary to allow access to services, but the level of birth registration is low in Nigeria. A household survey about management of childhood illnesses provided an opportunity to examine actionable determinants of birth registration of children in Bauchi and Cross River states of Nigeria., Methods: Trained field teams visited households in a stratified random cluster sample of 90 enumeration areas in each state. They administered a questionnaire to women 14-49 years old which included questions about birth registration of their children 0-47 months old and about socio-economic and other factors potentially related to birth registration, including education of the parents, poverty (food sufficiency), marital status of the mother, maternal antenatal care and place of delivery of the last pregnancy. Bivariate then multivariate analysis examined associations with birth registration. Facilitators later conducted separate male and female focus group discussions in the same 90 communities in each state, discussing the reasons for the findings about levels of birth registration., Results: Nearly half (45%) of 8602 children in Cross River State and only a fifth (19%) of 9837 in Bauchi State had birth certificates (seen or unseen). In both states, children whose mothers attended antenatal care and who delivered in a government health facility in their last pregnancy were more likely to have a birth certificate, as were children of more educated parents, from less poor households, and from urban communities. Focus group discussions revealed that many people did not know about birth certificates or where to get them, and parents were discouraged from getting birth certificates because of the unofficial payments involved., Conclusion: There are low levels of birth registration in Bauchi and Cross River states, particularly among disadvantaged households. As a result of this study, both states have planned interventions to increase birth registration, including closer collaboration between the National Population Commissions and state health services.

For the gamete and embryo donation community, it is well recognized that the implementation of a gamete and embryo donor registry (GEDR) represents a good initiative to ensure the best possible health conditions for donor-conceived individuals. Be they national, institutional or independent, GEDR can play a major role in the transmission of health-related genetic and medical information. However, from a bioethical analysis standpoint, GEDR raise many questions regarding the extent of their beneficent nature. Based on the recent Canadian GEDR aborted attempt, this article will focus on bioethical issues and paradoxes that can impact the wellbeing of donor-conceived individuals, half-siblings, donors and parents. On one hand, the implementation of a GEDR can be ethically justified as a beneficent action towards lessening harm associated with the transmission of hereditary disease and increasing the effectiveness of preventive and therapeutic approaches. On the other hand, examined through the concept of nonpaternalistic beneficence, GEDR challenge us to recognize beneficiaries' free agency, as well as the importance to transmit reliable and pertinent information. Ultimately, beyond an individualistic application of the principle of beneficence, socioethics invite us to consider consistency with societal values as a prerequisite for achieving a common good. Because the issue of whether or not to protect the donor's anonymity occupies the forefront of the discussion surrounding gamete and embryo donation, there is less interest in other initiatives, which may be implemented to ensure the best possible medical and psychosocial conditions for donor-conceived individuals. In this article, we propose a bioethical analysis of the use of gamete and embryo donor registries (GEDR) from the angle of the principle of beneficence. More specifically, we will concentrate on the Canadian situation regarding GEDR. We will look at the strengths and pitfalls of this mechanism and suggest a solution to maximize the benefits of a GEDR. Many have suggested that such an initiative could have a beneficial impact on the wellbeing of donor-conceived individuals, half-siblings, donors and parents, by ensuring the constant flow of health-related medical and genetic information. As self-evident as the social acceptability of a GEDR may seem, we wish to show the limitations of the benefits that a registry is supposed to provide. We argue that a GEDR has to do more than simply transmit health-related information between parties. It also has to be based on pertinent and reliable data, be useful for health promotion and recognize beneficiaries' free agency. Ultimately, the implementation of a GEDR has to take into consideration wider social values., (Copyright © 2013 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This paper analyses the current organ donor card system in Switzerland and identifies five problems that may be partially responsible for the country's low deceased organ donation rates. There are two minor issues concerning the process of obtaining a donor card: the Swisstransplant website understates the prospective benefits of donation, and the ease with which donor cards can be obtained raises questions regarding whether any consent to donation provided is truly informed. Furthermore, there are two major practical problems that might affect those who carry an organ donor card: the lack of a central donor registry increases the likelihood that donors' wishes will be "lost", and there is a high probability that family members will veto organ donation. The fact that these two practical problems are not mentioned to potential donors by Swisstransplant constitutes the fifth problem. Donation rates would probably improve if more accurate information about the benefits of donation were provided to potential donors, a central donor registry were created, and families were not permitted to veto donation from those on the registry.

Purpose of Review: Although living donor transplantation is considered an ethically acceptable undertaking for the purpose of saving another's life, its safety remains under investigation., Recent Findings: Although living donors undertake considerable medical risks for no direct medical benefit, the question remains whether the risks are acceptable and should be tolerated by providers and patients or whether additional interventions and safeguards are needed to reduce and/or prevent complications. By reviewing complication risk statistics and synthesizing empirical research regarding risk-taking thresholds and attitudes, this paper examines the possibilities for determining an acceptable level of complication risk for living donors. This paper also delineates the ethical tensions surrounding protecting donors from unnecessary risk versus respecting donor autonomy to accept risks, and concludes by discussing the importance of donor follow-up and the value of donor registries., Summary: In the absence of information on long-term donor outcomes, transplant centers should take special precautions to protect prospective donors given increasing pressures to reduce the organ shortage and concerns that donors often disregard risks to themselves to save the lives of others.

Congenital heart defects (CHD) are the leading cause of infant mortality among birth defects, and later morbidities and premature mortality remain problematic. Although genetic factors contribute significantly to cause CHD, specific genetic lesions are unknown for most patients. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded Pediatric Cardiac Genomics Consortium established the Congenital Heart Disease Genetic Network Study to investigate relationships between genetic factors, clinical features, and outcomes in CHD. The Pediatric Cardiac Genomics Consortium comprises 6 main and 4 satellite sites at which subjects are recruited, and medical data and biospecimens (blood, saliva, cardiovascular tissue) are collected. Core infrastructure includes an administrative/data-coordinating center, biorepository, data hub, and core laboratories (genotyping, whole-exome sequencing, candidate gene evaluation, and variant confirmation). Eligibility includes all forms of CHD. Annual follow-up is obtained for probands <1-year-old. Parents are enrolled whenever available. Enrollment from December 2010 to June 2012 comprised 3772 probands. One or both parents were enrolled for 72% of probands. Proband median age is 5.5 years. The one third enrolled at age <1 year are contacted annually for follow-up information. The distribution of CHD favors more complex lesions. Approximately, 11% of probands have a genetic diagnosis. Adequate DNA is available from 97% and 91% of blood and saliva samples, respectively. Genomic analyses of probands with heterotaxy, atrial septal defects, conotruncal, and left ventricular outflow tract obstructive lesions are underway. The scientific community's use of Pediatric Cardiac Genomics Consortium resources is welcome.

Some countries such as Australia, Spain, Norway, Italy and Canada allow next of kin to override the consent of registered organ donor candidates if they personally do not concur with the donation desire of their relative. This form of surrogate decision-making represents a double standard in terms of the principle of substituted judgment (the surrogate's duty). Further, double-standard surrogate decision-making in the setting of organ donation is a slippery slope to unethical surrogate decision-making while patients are alive. Concerns about family distress and donor candidate revocation of consent can still be managed without permitting double-standard surrogate decision-making., (© 2013 The Author; Internal Medicine Journal © 2013 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Health information technology (HIT) is ever-increasing in complexity and has incrementally become a fundamental part of our everyday clinical lives. As HIT becomes more complex and commonplace, so do the questions it raises about stewardship and usage of data, along with the ethics of these applications. With the development of rapid-learning systems, such as ASCO's CancerLinQ, careful thought about the ethics and applications of these technologies is necessary. This article uses the principles-based framework of modern bioethics to examine evolving ethical issues that arise in the context of HIT and also discusses HIT's application in reducing cancer care disparities in the developing world. We recognize that this topic is quite broad, so here we provide an overview of the issues, rather than any definitive conclusions about a particular "correct path." Our hope is to stimulate discussion about this important topic, which will increasingly need to be addressed in the oncology community.

Background: Registries are considered key instruments for developing rare disease (RD) clinical research, enhancing patient care and health planning, and improving social, economic and quality-of-life outcomes. Indeed, it is usually the case that no single institution, and in many cases no single country, has sufficient data to provide results that can be applied broadly to clinical and translational research. However, the fragmentation and heterogeneity of the registries, which are often the result of spontaneous initiatives, limit the general applicability of their observations., Methods: An inquiry has been carried out by the EPIRARE, a European Union (EU)-funded project ('Building Consensus and Synergies for the EU Registration of Rare Disease Patients') aiming at paving the way to the creation of a European Platform for RD Registries, by means of an on-line questionnaire among European RD registries on their main activities and needs, the way they deal with methodological, technical and regulatory issues and the way they find resources to carry on their activities., Results: In spite of the heterogeneity of the European registries, some elements of relevance for an action to improve the situation of patient registries in the EU are apparent. The needs more frequently indicated by registry holders were financial support, motivation of data providers, data quality assessment, improvement of communication and visibility, and extension of collaborations. Moreover, the registry holders were in favor of a common EU platform providing services for RD registries., Conclusion: It appears that the current situation of the European registries provides the transition towards a more uniform, higher quality and better coordinated approach., (© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Research registries are increasingly important in medical research and are essential to the mission of cancer centers. However, designing enrollment and data collection procedures that are consistent with ethical norms and regulatory requirements yet are efficient and cost effective is a major challenge. Current standard consent forms can be a barrier to enrollment because of their length, multiple components, and technical language. We pilot tested an IRB-approved registry booklet and simplified one-page, tiered consent form, allowing for choice of extent of participation. The booklet was mailed to patients with breast cancer as part of their routine information packet prior to the first clinic appointment. A research nurse met with 27 patients at initial treatment to review the booklet, answer questions, obtain informed consent, and collect quality of life data. The consent rate was 78% with 21 patients enrolling in the study. Twelve of the 21 patients (57%) did not read the booklet prior to the visit. The 9 patients (43%) who had read the booklet prior to arrival found it easy to understand. The multi-stage, simplified consent process and data collection were acceptable to these patients and readily integrated into clinical operations. An easy-to-read registry booklet may be an effective guide for discussion, but in-person consent procedures and further testing of the approach are required.

Background: Medical registries serve patients as beneficiaries of quality standards and new treatment opportunities. However, it has been argued that registries threaten patient privacy interests and should therefore be more strictly regulated., Methods and Results: With the European Treatment and Outcome Study for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia as a concrete example we identify and describe how four of the major arguments put forward for stricter regulation fail., Conclusion: We conclude that medical registries should be promoted both for research and quality control, and that the regulatory bureaucratic burden should be reduced., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Together with large biobanks of human samples, medical registries with aggregated data from many clinical centers are vital parts of an infrastructure for maintaining high standards of quality with regard to medical diagnosis and treatment. The rapid development in personalized medicine and pharmaco-genomics only underscores the future need for these infrastructures. However, registries and biobanks have been criticized as constituting great risks to individual privacy. In this article, I suggest that quality with regard to diagnosis and treatment is an inherent, morally normative requirement of health care, and argue that quality concerns in this sense may be balanced with privacy concerns.

Pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of clinical research that is carried out on medications. Poor outcomes from these studies can have negative effects on sales of medicines. Previous research has shown that company funded research is much more likely to yield positive outcomes than research with any other sponsorship. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible ways in which bias can be introduced into research outcomes by drawing on concrete examples from the published literature. Poorer methodology in industry-funded research is not likely to account for the biases seen. Biases are introduced through a variety of measures including the choice of comparator agents, multiple publication of positive trials and non-publication of negative trials, reinterpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies, discordance between results and conclusions, conflict-of-interest leading to more positive conclusions, ghostwriting and the use of "seeding" trials. Thus far, efforts to contain bias have largely focused on more stringent rules regarding conflict-of-interest (COI) and clinical trial registries. There is no evidence that any measures that have been taken so far have stopped the biasing of clinical research and it's not clear that they have even slowed down the process. Economic theory predicts that firms will try to bias the evidence base wherever its benefits exceed its costs. The examples given here confirm what theory predicts. What will be needed to curb and ultimately stop the bias that we have seen is a paradigm change in the way that we treat the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

The dual enrolling of phase I volunteers is a potential risk to subjects. It can also distort study results, threaten study validity, and possibly cause harm to future patients. Existing subject registries differ in structure, funding, and governance. Although the choice of the ideal system is driven by the scope of the risk and the funding mechanism, and is ultimately a value judgment of freedom versus paternalism, none of the registries significantly impinges on the tenets of ethically based research., Competing Interests: The authors declared no conflict of interest.