Search

Much attention has been focused in recent years on the ethical acceptability of physicians receiving gifts from drug companies. Professional guidelines recognize industry gifts as a conflict of interest and establish thresholds prohibiting the exchange of large gifts while expressly allowing for the exchange of small gifts such as pens, note pads, and coffee. Considerable evidence from the social sciences suggests that gifts of negligible value can influence the behavior of the recipient in ways the recipient does not always realize. Policies and guidelines that rely on arbitrary value limits for gift-giving or receipt should be reevaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oregon has legalized and implemented physician-assisted suicide, while observers argue about the moral import of attempting to formulate guidelines; the utility any set of guidelines can have for physician practice, health care providers, patients, or families; and whether guidelines can really protect against harm or abuse. What were once theoretical questions have taken on new urgency. The debate over the value and power of guidelines includes the following questions: What has been the experience of efforts to implement physician-assisted suicide using consensus guidelines? What goals are guidelines intended to serve? Who should formulate guidelines? What features should be reflected in any proposed guidelines to make them practical and to permit achievement of their goals? Are there any fundamental obstacles to the creation or implementation of guidelines? Is dying a process that is amenable to direction under guidelines, be they issued by physicians, departments of health, blue ribbon panels, or other regulatory bodies? This paper explores these questions as physician-assisted suicide becomes legal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because of a shortage of transplantable livers and hearts, the transplant community has had to decide--by who gets an organ--who lives or dies. Despite this shortage, whether one has previously received a transplant is not used as a criterion to distribute organs. The existing allocation system distributes 10% to 20% of available hearts and livers to retransplant patients. This article examines three differences between primary transplantation and retransplantation that may affect the priority that retransplant candidates should receive in vying for organs: (1) the special obligations that transplant teams have not to abandon patients on whom they have already performed a transplant, (2) the fairness of allowing individuals to get multiple transplants while some die awaiting their first, and (3) the difference in efficacy between primary transplantation and retransplantation. Only this last difference holds up to critical analysis. Our moral duty to direct scarce, lifesaving resources to those likely to benefit from them, suggests that, all other things equal, primary transplant candidates should receive priority because their mortality after transplantation is lower. Consistency also demands that previous transplant history be taken into account, as we already allocate organs according to ABO blood group matching, a factor that affects transplant outcome approximately the same amount as a previous transplantation. We therefore conclude that the system should be revised so that primary transplant candidates have a better chance of receiving organs than retransplant candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine why Required Request policies, which mandate that hospitals request donation from donor-eligible families, have not resulted in increased organ procurement.Setting: Stratified sample of 23 acute-care general hospitals in two metropolitan areas.Design: Chart review identified all eligible donors in study hospitals during a 20-month period. Health care professionals who spoke with the families of eligible donors after death were interviewed to determine families' and health care providers' behaviors after patients' deaths with reference to the donation process.Participants: All patient deaths (n = 10,681) were reviewed, and 841 donor-eligible cases were chosen for in-depth study; 1809 health care professionals who provided care to these patients were interviewed.Measurements: The ability of health care providers to identify donor-eligible patients, approach families about donation, and obtain families' consent to donation.Results: 83% of health care professionals correctly identified donor-eligible patients. The families of donor-eligible patients were approached about donation in 73.0% of the cases. Families were more likely to be approached about organ (86.6%) donation than either tissue (69.5%) or cornea (67.3%) donation (P < 0.001). The families of organ-eligible patients were less likely to be approached if the patient was female, was on a general medical or surgical floor, or was being cared for by internists. Only 46.5% of families of eligible donors agreed to donate organs, 34.5% agreed to donate tissues, and 23.5% agreed to donate corneas.Conclusions: Although health care professionals do request that families donate, families consent to donation less frequently than was previously assumed. Empirically based education campaigns are needed so that health care professionals can improve their communication skills and so that discussion about this important issue can be stimulated among family members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genes are being cloned and DNA tests developed at a dazzling pace. How will this explosion of information affect your relationship with patients? And how will you deal with the ethical issues it raises? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Pyridine-2,6-bis(thiocarboxylic acid) (pdtc) is a small secreted metabolite that has a high affinity for transition metals, increases iron uptake efficiency by 20% in Pseudomonas stutzeri, has the ability to reduce both soluble and mineral forms of iron, and has antimicrobial activity towards several species of bacteria. Six GenBank sequences code for proteins similar in structure to MoeZ, a P. stutzeri protein necessary for the synthesis of pdtc. Results Analysis of sequences similar to P. stutzeri MoeZ revealed that it is a member of a superfamily consisting of related but structurally distinct proteins that are members of pathways involved in the transfer of sulfur-containing moieties to metabolites. Members of this family of enzymes are referred to here as MoeB, MoeBR, MoeZ, and MoeZdR. MoeB, the molybdopterin synthase activating enzyme in the molybdopterin cofactor biosynthesis pathway, is the most characterized protein from this family. Remarkably, lengths of greater than 73% nucleic acid homology ranging from 35 to 486 bp exist between Pseudomonas stutzeri moeZ and genomic sequences found in some Mycobacterium, Mesorhizobium, Pseudomonas, Streptomyces, and cyanobacteria species. Conclusions The phylogenetic relationship among moeZ sequences suggests that P. stutzeri may have acquired moeZ through lateral gene transfer from a donor more closely related to mycobacteria and cyanobacteria than to proteobacteria. The importance of this relationship lies in the fact that pdtc, the product of the P. stutzeri pathway that includes moeZ, has an impressive set of capabilities, some of which could make it a potent pathogenicity factor.

Strategies to address misinformation and hesitancy about vaccines, including the fear of needles, and to overcome obstacles to access, such as the refrigeration that some vaccines demand, strongly suggest the need to develop new vaccine delivery technologies. But, given widespread distrust surrounding vaccination, these new technologies must be introduced to the public with the utmost transparency, care, and community involvement. Two emerging technologies, one a skin-patch vaccine and the other a companion dye and detector, provide excellent examples of greatly improved delivery technologies for which such a careful approach should be developed in order to increase vaccine uptake. Defusing fears and conspiracy mongering must be a key part of their rollout., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement., (© 2023 The Hastings Center.)

Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure Arthur Caplan serves as the unpaid chair of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committees (CompAC), independent panels of internationally recognized medical experts, bioethicists, and patient representatives formed by NYU School of Medicine in collaboration with Janssen. CompAC advises Janssen about requests for compassionate use of its investigational medicines. NYU receives administrative funding from Janssen to facilitate the CompAC committees. He discusses emerging issues in research ethics with WIRB/WCG leadership, and also gives lectures on research ethics topics to WIRB/WCG staff and fellows. He has consulted for pay with eGenesis Bioethics Advisory Board, Genae/Cardialen-DSMB, Biomarin, Cabaletta Bio, Accenture, MaxCyte, NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. Hevolution foundation. He was recently an Expert Witness for the Vermont Board of Medical Practice and State of Vermont. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Organ transplantation is limited due to the scarcity of donor organs. In order to expand the supply of organs for transplantation, interspecies chimeras have been examined as a potential future source of humanized organs. Recent studies using gene editing technologies in combination with somatic cell nuclear transfer technology and hiPSCs successfully engineered humanized skeletal muscle in the porcine embryo. As these technologies progress, there are ethical issues that warrant consideration and dialogue., (© 2022 The Authors. American Journal of Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Coronavirus vaccines have made their debut. Now, allocation practices have stepped into the spotlight. Following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, states and healthcare institutions initially prioritised healthcare personnel and elderly residents of congregant facilities; other groups at elevated risk for severe complications are now becoming eligible through locally administered programmes. The question remains, however: who else should be prioritised for immunisation? Here, we call attention to individuals institutionalised with severe mental illnesses and/or developmental or intellectual disabilities-a group highly susceptible to the damages of COVID-19, recent research shows, and critical to consider for priority vaccination. The language describing both federal-level and state-level intentions for this population remains largely vague, despite the population's diversity across age, diagnosis, functional status and living arrangement. Such absence of specificity, in turn, leaves room for confusion and even neglect of various subgroups. We review data stressing this group's vulnerability, as well as select state plans for priority vaccination, highlighting the importance of clarity when describing intentions to vaccinate, or even generally care for, diverse populations composed of distinct subgroups in need., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Public attention has been drawn recently to the commercial availability of noninvasive prenatal screening for rare genetic conditions, despite estimates that the positive predictive value of such tests is low. Many have focused on the importance of educating patients on the difference between screening and diagnostic testing so that they are adequately prepared for the possibility of a false-positive result. Even so, we question whether expanded noninvasive prenatal screening is ready to be used a screening tool. We argue that established public health criteria for evaluating the risks and benefits of a screening tool should be applied to expanded noninvasive prenatal screening. If a test fails to meet accepted standards, governmental agencies should consider regulating the accuracy and promotional claims of commercially available tests., Competing Interests: Financial Disclosure The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The practice of modern craniomaxillofacial surgery has been defined by emergent technologies allowing for the acquisition, storage, utilization, and transfer of massive amounts of sensitive and identifiable patient data. This alone has thrust providers into an unlikely and unprecedented role as the stewards of vast databases of digital information. This data powers the potent surgical tool of virtual surgical planning, a method by which craniomaxillofacial surgeons plan and simulate procedural outcomes in a digital environment. Further complicating this new terrain is the involvement of third-party contractors-a necessary presence in bringing raw data to bear in the office, virtual space, and operating room. The individual privileges and responsibilities of patients, providers, and vendors towards data are situated within the most recent U.S. court rulings and regulations. This paper offers guidance for overseeing the safe and responsible transfer to third-party contractors, and provides suggestions for negotiating the trinary relationship between physicians, their patients, and the vendors offering this transformative technology., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the difficulty of the US public health system to respond effectively to vulnerable subpopulations, causing disproportionate rates of morbidity and mortality. New York Haredi-Orthodox Jewish communities represent a group that have been heavily impacted by Covid-19. Little research has examined their experience or perceptions toward Covid-19 and vaccines. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study to explore the experience of Covid-19 among Haredim. Paper surveys were self-administered between December 2020 and January 2021 in Haredi neighborhood pediatricians' offices in Brooklyn, New York. Of 102 respondents, 43% reported either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral or antibody test. Participants trusted their physicians, Orthodox medical organizations, and rabbinic leaders for medical information. Knowledge of Covid-19 transmission and risk was good (69% answered ≥ 4/6 questions correctly). Only 12% of respondents would accept a Covid-19 vaccine, 41% were undecided and 47% were strongly hesitant. Independent predictors of strong vaccine hesitancy included believing natural infection to be better than vaccination for developing immunity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-14.86), agreement that prior infection provides a path toward resuming communal life (aOR 4.10; 95% CI 1.22-13.77), and pandemic-related loss of trust in physicians (aOR 5.01; 95% CI 1.05-23.96). The primary disseminators of health information for self-protective religious communities should be stakeholders who understand these groups' unique health needs. In communities with significant Covid-19 experience, vaccination messaging may need to be tailored toward protecting infection-naïve individuals and boosting natural immunity against emerging variants., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they do not have any manifest conflict of interest. Dr. Buchan reports personal fees and other from his service as Chief Data Scientist Advisor to AstraZeneca and a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), all outside the submitted work. Ms. Aspinall reports that she is compensated for her service on the Boards of Directors of both Orasure and Abcam as well as for serving as an Advisor to Cepheid. Dr. Binding reports that he works for Robert Bosch GmbH. There is a separate division within the company producing and selling rapid PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 ("Vivalytics"). He declares that he has no work ties with that team.

Immorally acquired information from Nazi experimentation or other sources infects the body of scientific and biomedical knowledge. Responding to this reality ethically means insisting on good teaching about the horrific history of such information's sources and careful deliberation about how it is referenced and described., (© 2021 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

The federal research misconduct regulations finalized in 2005 did not incorporate important principles regarding human subjects protections articulated in The Belmont Report, yet research misconduct can involve harms to research subjects and to subsequent patients whose treatments are based on false research findings. Consistency with the Belmont principles would require assuring regular monitoring to detect research misconduct, tracing effects of research misconduct on trial participants and informing them of these effects, and assuring timely correction of published reports of research findings if research misconduct related to the study was subsequently discovered. Research misconduct has historically been viewed as a matter for the scientific community to manage; it is actually a threat to the welfare of human subjects and ethically ought to be treated as such., (© 2021 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Pediatric patients are excluded from most coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapeutic trials. We outline a rationale for the inclusion of children in COVID-19 therapeutic trials, which enabled us to include children of all ages in a therapeutic COVID-19 trial at our institution., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)