AJOB Empirical Bioethics最新文献

Background: Potential clinical interventions to mitigate or eliminate symptoms of Down syndrome (DS) continue to be an active area of pre-clinical and clinical research. However, views of members of the DS community have yet to be fully explored.

Methods: We conducted a survey with parents/caregivers of people with DS (n = 532) to explore interest in potential therapeutic approaches during fetal development or childhood that may improve neurocognition and modulate the DS phenotype. We qualitatively analyzed open-ended responses.

Results: Some respondents rejected the development of therapies for DS categorically as being fundamentally ableist and promoting the erasure of diverse individuals. Many reflected tensions between the desire to improve quality of life and an aversion to erasure of a child's personality.

Conclusion: Findings suggest that views on identity, personality, and disability may influence the acceptance of new interventions, especially if they are thought to mitigate positive attributes of the phenotype or negatively influence social acceptance of people with DS.

Background: Genome scientists and Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of genetics (ELSI) scholars commonly inhabit distinct research cultures - utilizing different research methods, asking different research questions, and valuing different types of knowledge. Collaborations between these two communities are frequently called for to enhance the ethical conduct of genomics research. Yet, little has been done to qualitatively compare genome scientists' and ELSI scholars' perspectives on collaborations with each other and the factors that may affect these collaborations.

Methods: 20 semi-structured interviews with US-based genome scientists and ELSI scholars were conducted between June-September 2021. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Genome scientists and ELSI scholars provided different understandings of the value and goals of their collaborations with each other. Genome scientists largely perceived ELSI expertise to be relevant for human subjects research; they described ELSI scholars as communicators who help the public and/or study participants better understand genomics research. In comparison, ELSI scholars viewed themselves as developing and implementing policies; they expressed frustration at how scientists can misunderstand their research methods or negatively perceive them. A combination of factors - both structural (e.g., criteria for promotion) and cultural (e.g., perceptions of what colleagues value and respect) - seemed to shape these diverging perspectives.

Conclusion: Academic institutions, funders, and researchers commonly call for collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars, but under-consider how their different conceptual frameworks, research methods, goals, norms, and values, conjoin to affect such partnerships. Acknowledging, exploring, and addressing the complex interplay between these factors could help to more effectively facilitate collaborations between genome scientists and ELSI scholars.

Background: Advance healthcare decision-making presumes that a prior treatment preference expressed with sufficient mental capacity ("T1 preference") should trump a contrary preference expressed after significant cognitive decline ("T2 preference"). This assumption is much debated in normative bioethics, but little is known about lay judgments in this domain. This study investigated participants' judgments about which preference should be followed, and whether these judgments differed depending on a first-person (deciding for one's future self) versus third-person (deciding for a friend or stranger) perspective.

Methods: A vignette-based survey was conducted (N = 1445 US Americans; gender-balanced sample), in a 3 (relationship: self, best friend, stranger) × 2 (T1 preference: treat, do not treat) × 2 (T2 contrary preference: ambiguous, unambiguous) design.

Results: Participants were more likely to defer to the incapacitated T2 preference of a third-party, while being more likely to insist on following their own T1 capacitated preference. Further, participants were more likely to conclude that others with substantial cognitive decline were still their "true selves," which correlated with increased deference to their T2 preferences.

Conclusions: These findings add to the growing evidence that lay intuitions concerning the ethical entitlement to have decisions respected are not only a function of cognition, as would be expected under many traditional bioethical accounts, but also depend on the relationship of the decision to the decision-maker's true self.

Background: In the early 2010s, a phenomenon known as do-it-yourself (DIY) fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) emerged as lay individuals began self-administering FMTs at home. Although prior research indicates that many individuals who perform DIY FMT have sought advice from healthcare providers, to date there has been no investigation of physicians' experiences with DIY FMT. The objective of this qualitative study was to examine the attitudes of physicians who offer FMT regarding the practice of DIY FMT and to assess how they navigated the ethical challenges of patient requests for DIY FMT.

Methods: We recruited physicians listed on two patient-created online databases of FMT providers. All physicians who indicated having been approached for advice about DIY FMT were included in the study. Semi-structured interviews with physicians explored their attitudes toward and experiences with DIY FMT.

Results: Of 18 physicians interviewed, one reported having provided counsel in response to an initial patient inquiry about DIY FMT, 2 indicated they explicitly advised against DIY FMT and refused to provide advice, and 15 fell in a middle category of discouraging DIY FMT and discussing reasons why. Among the physicians in this third category, four reported that they had changed their approach to providing counsel in response to a patient telling them they were going to perform DIY FMT anyway.

Conclusions: Physicians in our study employed a wide range of strategies for promoting safety in the DIY FMT context, from explicitly advising against the procedure to the provision of guidance aimed at mitigating potential harms. While there has been increasing attention to the practices of DIY medicine, this study underscores the need for greater attention to the ethically complex situations that physicians face when patients request guidance for unapproved at-home treatments.

Background: This study assesses how pediatric assent is conceptualized and justified within the therapeutic context. Pediatric ethicists generally agree that children should participate in medical care decisions in developmentally appropriate ways. Much attention has been paid to pediatric assent for research participation, but ambiguities persist in how assent is conceptualized and operationalized in the therapeutic context where countervailing considerations such as the child's best interest and parental permission must also be weighed.

Methods: Searches were conducted in 11 databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Articles published between 2010 and 2020 were screened in COVIDENCE for meeting each of four criteria: (1) focusing on pediatric assent, (2) focusing on clinical care, (3) including normative claims, and (4) containing substantive statements about the meaning of pediatric assent. Full texts were abstracted for (1) operational definitions of assent, (2) discussion of the temporal nature of assent, (3) description of the concept of "understanding," and (4) ethical justifications for soliciting assent. These excerpts were coded and code patterns formed themes presented in the results.

Results: The final analytic data set contained 29 articles. Analysis yielded three key themes. First, valid assent varies by treatment, population (e.g., younger versus older), and geographic/cultural context. Second, assent represents two distinct longitudinal processes: One involves eliciting preferences over a disease course or care episode; the other focuses on children's developmental maturation. Third, ethical justifications for assent draw variously on instrumental and intrinsic reasons, but often remain ambiguous.

Conclusions: There is widespread agreement that assent is morally valuable, but there remain substantial ambiguities or disagreements about its meaning, process, and ethical justification.

Background: Rare diseases are generally poorly understood from scientific and medical standpoints due, to their complexity and low prevalence. As a result, individuals living with rare diseases struggle to obtain timely diagnoses and suitable care. These clinical difficulties add to the physical and psychological impacts of living with chronic and often severe medical conditions. From the standpoint of pragmatist ethics, the morally problematic situations that adults living with rare diseases experience matter crucially. However, there is little known about these experiences.

Methods: A survey study was conducted with 121 adults living with rare diseases in Québec, Canada, to identify morally problematic situations encountered in the healthcare system and everyday life as part of a participatory action research project. Morally problematic situations elicited internal tensions and constraints to agency.

Results: Adults living with rare diseases experienced morally problematic situations of stigmatization, disbelief, and sometimes abuse in the healthcare system. These situations were compounded by diagnostic delays, inadequate care, and suboptimal follow-up, and led some individuals to opt-out of medical care. In their personal lives, these individuals sometimes found themselves in situations of physical and financial dependency. They often also had to give up professional occupations, academic training, or life projects.

Conclusions: Adults living with rare diseases experience important morally problematic situations navigating the healthcare system and their everyday lives, some of which could be alleviated through interventions developed through future participatory action research.

Background: There are intense discussions about the ethical and societal implications of biomedical engineering, but little data to suggest how scientists think about the ethics of their work. The aim of this study is to describe how scientists frame the ethics of their research, with a focus on the field of molecular systems engineering.

Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted during 2021-2022, as part of a larger study. This analysis includes a broad question about how participants view ethics as related to their work, with follow up probes about the topics they consider most important. Interviews were transcribed, inductively coded by two researchers to consensus, and analyzed thematically.

Results: Twenty-four scientists participated in the study. Interviewees hold positions as professors, principal investigators, and senior staff researchers in universities or research institutes in the United States and Europe. Among those scientists who reported reflecting on ethical considerations in their work, many equated ethics with research ethics topics (e.g., safety, replicability), or with regulation and guidelines. Participants expressed the view that ethical issues are primarily relevant for clinical trials of bioengineered products, or for those working with animal or human subjects. Scientists described their research as "too early" or "not examining anything living" with regard to ethical reflection. Finally, many felt that ethics is seen as territory for experts and therefore beyond scientists' competencies.

Conclusions: Molecular systems engineering scientists currently focus on regulatory aspects as the framework for their ethical analyses. They describe using a framework to define when life arises, as a means to determine when further ethical engagement is warranted. Further research is needed to investigate how scientists relate to the ethics of their scientific work, and build consensus around concepts of life, autonomous behavior, and physiological relevance of bioengineered systems.

Background: Patients with chronic pain face significant barriers in finding clinicians to manage long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). For patients on LTOT, it is increasingly common to have them sign opioid treatment agreements (OTAs). OTAs enumerate the risks of opioids, as informed consent documents would, but also the requirements that patients must meet to receive LTOT. While there has been an ongoing scholarly discussion about the practical and ethical implications of OTA use in the abstract, little is known about how clinicians use them and if OTAs themselves modify clinician prescribing practices.

Objective: To determine how clinicians use OTAs and the potential impacts of OTAs on opioid prescribing.

Design: We conducted qualitative analysis of four focus groups of clinicians from a large Midwestern academic medical center. Groups were organized according to self-identified prescribing patterns: two groups for clinicians who identified as prescribers of LTOT, and two who did not.

Participants: 17 clinicians from General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Palliative Care were recruited using purposive, convenience sampling.

Approach: Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using reflexive thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team.

Key results: Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) OTAs did not influence clinicians' decisions whether to use LTOT generally but did shape clinical decision-making for individual patients; (2) clinicians feel OTAs intensify the power they have over patients, though this was not uniformly judged as harmful; (3) there is a potential misalignment between the intended purposes of OTAs and their implementation.

Conclusion: This study reveals a complicated relationship between OTAs and access to pain management. While OTAs seem not to impact the clinicians' decisions about whether to use LTOT generally, they do sometimes influence prescribing decisions for individual patients. Clinicians shared complex views about OTAs' purposes, which shows the need for more clarity about how OTAs could be used to promote shared decision-making, joint accountability, informed consent, and patient education.

Importance: Informed consent is essential to ethical, rigorous research and is important to recruitment and retention in cancer trials.

Objective: To examine cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants' perceptions of informed consent processes and variations in perceptions by cancer type.

Design and setting and participants: Cross-sectional survey from mixed-methods study at National Cancer Institute-designated Northeast comprehensive cancer center. Open-ended and forced-choice items addressed: (1) enrollment and informed consent experiences and (2) decision-making processes, including risk-benefit assessment. Eligibility: CCT participant with gastro-intestinal or genitourinary, hematologic-lymphatic malignancies, lung cancer, and breast or gynecological cancer (N = 334).

Main outcome measures: Percentages satisfied with consent process and information provided; and assessing participation's perceptions of risks/benefits. Multivariable logistic or ordinal regression examined differences by cancer type.

Results: Most patient-participants felt well informed by the consent process (more than 90% overall and by cancer type) and. most (87.4%) reported that the consent form provided all the information they wanted, although nearly half (44.8%) reported that they read the form somewhat carefully or less. More than half (57.9%) said that talking to research staff (i.e., the consent process) had a greater impact on participation decisions than reading the consent form (2.1%). A third (31.1%) were very sure of joining in research studies before the informed consent process (almost half of lung cancer patients did-47.1%). Most patients personally assessed the risks and benefits before consenting. However, trust in physicians played an important role in the decision to enroll in CCT.

Conclusions and relevance: Cancer patients rely less on written features of the informed consent process than on information obtained from the research staff and their own physicians. Research should focus on information and communication strategies that support informed consent from referring physicians, researchers, and others to improve patient risk-benefit assessment and decision-making.