Responding to requests of families for unproven interventions in neurodevelopmental disorders: hyperbaric oxygen "treatment" and stem cell "therapy" in cerebral palsy

Academic Physician Specialists' Approaches to Counseling Patients Interested in Unproven Stem Cell and Regenerative Therapies-A Qualitative Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the experiences, approaches, and challenges of physicians consulting patients about experimental stem cell and regenerative medicine interventions (SCRIs).

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

From August 21, 2018, through July 30, 2019, semistructured interviews of 25 specialists in cardiology, ophthalmology, orthopedics, pulmonology, and neurology were conducted and qualitatively analyzed using modified grounded theory.

RESULTS

All specialists used informational approaches to counsel patients, especially orthopedists. Informational approaches included explaining stem cell science, sharing risks, and providing principles. Several specialists also used relational counseling approaches including emphasizing that physicians want what is best for patients, acknowledging suffering, reassuring continued care, empathizing with patients and families, and underscoring that patients have the final decision. Many specialists reported being comfortable with the conversation, although some were less comfortable and several noted challenges in the consultation including wanting to support a patient's decision but worrying about harms from unproven SCRIs, navigating family pressure, and addressing stem cell hype and unrealistic expectations. Specialists also desired that additional resources be available for them and patients.

CONCLUSION

Physicians relied more heavily on providing patients with information about SCRIs than using relational counseling approaches. Efforts should be directed at helping physicians address the informational and relational needs of patients, including providing tools and resources that inform physicians about the unproven SCRI industry, building skills in empathic communication, and the creation and dissemination of evidence-based resources to offer patients.

New Ethical Issues in Cerebral Palsy

Current societal and technological changes have added to the ethical issues faced by people with cerebral palsy. These include new representations of disability, and the current International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health, changes in legislation and international conventions, as well as applications of possibilities offered by robotics, brain–computer interface devices, muscles and brain stimulation techniques, wearable sensors, artificial intelligence, genetics, and more for diagnostic, therapeutic, or other purposes. These developments have changed the way we approach diagnosis, set goals for intervention, and create new opportunities. This review examines those influences on clinical practice from an ethical perspective and highlights how a principled approach to clinical bioethics can help the clinician to address ethical dilemmas that occur in practice. It also points to implications of those changes on research priorities.

Understanding and addressing barriers to communication in the context of neonatal neurologic injury: Exploring the ouR-HOPE approach

Predicting neurologic outcomes for neonates with acute brain injury is essential for guiding the development of treatment goals and appropriate care plans in collaboration with parents and families. Prognostication helps parents imagine their child's possible future and helps them make ongoing treatment decisions in an informed way. However, great uncertainty surrounds neurologic prognostication for neonates, as well as biases and implicit attitudes that can impact clinicians' prognoses, all of which pose significant challenges to evidence-based prognostication in this context. In order to facilitate greater attention to these challenges and guide their navigation, this chapter explores the practice principles captured in the ouR-HOPE approach. This approach proposes the principles of Reflection, Humility, Open-mindedness, Partnership, and Engagement and related self-assessment questions to encourage clinicians to reflect on their practices and to engage with others in responding to challenges. We explore the meaning of each principle through five clinical cases involving neonatal neurologic injury, decision making, and parent-clinician communication. The ouR-HOPE approach should bring more cohesion to the sometimes disparate concerns reported in the literature and encourage clinicians and teams to consider its principles along with other guidelines and practices they find to be particularly helpful in guiding communication with parents and families.

Unproven stem cell-based interventions & physicians' professional obligations; a qualitative study with medical regulatory authorities in Canada

Background

The pursuit of unproven stem cell-based interventions (“stem cell tourism”) is an emerging issue that raises various concerns. Physicians play different roles in this market, many of which engage their legal, ethical and professional obligations. In Canada, physicians are members of a self-regulated profession and their professional regulatory bodies are responsible for regulating the practice of medicine and protecting the public interest. They also provide policy guidance to their members and discipline members for unprofessional conduct.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with representatives from six different provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Canada to discuss their experiences and perspectives regarding stem cell tourism. Our focus was on exploring how different types of physician involvement in this market would be viewed by physicians’ professional regulatory bodies in Canada.

Results

When considering physicians’ professional obligations, participants drew analogies between stem cell tourism and other areas of medical tourism as well as with some aspects of complementary alternative medicine where existing policies, codes of ethics and regulations provide some guidance. Canadian physicians are required to act in the best interests of their patients, respect patient autonomy, avoid conflicts of interest and pursue evidence-based practice in accordance with accepted standards of care. Physicians who provide unproven treatments falling outside the standard of care, not in the context of an approved research protocol, could be subject to professional discipline. Other types of problematic conduct include referrals involving financial conflict of interest and failure to provide urgent medically necessary care. Areas of ambiguity include physicians’ obligations when asked for information and advice about seeking unproven medical treatments, in terms of providing non-urgent follow-up care, and when asked to support efforts to go abroad by providing tests or procedures in advance that would not otherwise be medically indicated.

Conclusions

Specific policy guidance regarding the identified areas of tension or ambiguity may prove helpful for physicians struggling with these issues. Further consideration of the complex interplay of factors at issue in how physicians may (should) respond to patient demands related to unproven medical interventions while meeting their professional, legal and ethical obligations, is warranted.

Ethics in neurodevelopmental disability

Neurodevelopmental disabilities, like autism spectrum disorders and cerebral palsy are a common health problem in children. Given the impact of these conditions on children, families, and healthcare and social systems, the care of developmentally challenged children raises questions related to values and ethical principles. We review the common features of neurodevelopmental disorders that help understand the associated ethical questions. We focus on three major areas where ethical questions arise for clinicians and those involved in making decisions for or caring for these children: (1) the principles of decision-making and autonomy as they relate to developmental disability; (2) the issues related to quality of life that have long intersected with developmental disability; and (3) the use of unproven therapies and diagnostics that are particularly controversial given the extent that neurodevelopmental disabilities impact children and their families, yet active treatments options are limited.