Patient-specific devices and population-level evidence: evaluating therapeutic interventions with inherent variation

Constructing appropriate bioprinting regulations: the ethical importance of recognising a liminal technology

This article provides an analysis of bioprinting personalised medical device technology and its ethical challenges to regulation and research ethics. I argue the inclusion of bioprinting applications within existing regulatory frameworks does not adequately address the technologies disruption to the traditionally siloed activities of research and treatment. Using the conceptual framework of liminality, I offer a meaningful way to engage with this technology and address some identified concerns with how it will be categorised and the appropriate recognition of its evidentiary thresholds. I demonstrate these concerns through the exploration of limited conventional research methodologies tasked with the production of generalisable knowledge, specifically population-based evidence that is derived from Randomised Clinical Trials. I use Australian regulatory amendments introduced in 2021 as an example of current regulatory trajectories and highlight why I believe this approach to be insufficient. The significance of this argument will be to demonstrate the disruption of bioprinting applications to current approaches in medical policy, and how various jurisdictions are enacting regulation that is not fit for purpose.

Personalized 3D printed scaffolds: The ethical aspects

Personalized 3D printed scaffolds are a new generation of implants for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine purposes. Scaffolds support cell growth, providing an artificial extracellular matrix for tissue repair and regeneration and can biodegrade once cells have assumed their physiological and structural roles. The ethical challenges and opportunities of these implants should be mapped in parallel with the life cycle of the scaffold to assist their development and implementation in a responsible, safe, and ethically sound manner. This article provides an overview of these relevant ethical aspects. We identified nine themes which were linked to three stages of the life cycle of the scaffold: the development process, clinical testing, and the implementation process. The described ethical issues are related to good research and clinical practices, such as privacy issues concerning digitalization, first-in-human trials, responsibility and commercialization. At the same time, this article also creates awareness for underexplored ethical issues, such as irreversibility, embodiment and the ontological status of these scaffolds. Moreover, it exemplifies how to include gender in the ethical assessment of new technologies. These issues are important for responsible development and implementation of personalized 3D printed scaffolds and in need of more attention within the additive manufacturing and tissue engineering field. Moreover, the insights of this review reveal unresolved qualitative empirical and normative questions that could further deepen the understanding and co-creation of the ethical implications of this new generation of implants.

An account of medical treatment, with a preliminary account of medical conditions

In this article, I present a philosophical account of medical treatment. In support of this account, I offer a suggestive account of medical conditions. The account of medical treatment uses three desiderata to demarcate treatment from non-treatment. Namely, a treatment should: (1) be describable by features that enable it to be standardized and characterized as a discrete intervention, (2) target a specific medical condition, and (3) have the possibility of being effective. The account of medical conditions underlies the second desideratum and attempts to tie medical conditions closely to biological dysfunction, while also including some conditions for which biological dysfunction is absent or its presence uncertain. I offer a simple typology of treatments and show how the accounts are relevant to treatment effectiveness, disease, placebos, contested treatments, and treatment standardization.

Legal issues and underexplored data protection in medical 3D printing: A scoping review

Introduction: 3D printing has quickly found many applications in medicine. However, as with any new technology the regulatory landscape is struggling to stay abreast. Unclear legislation or lack of legislation has been suggested as being one hindrance for wide-scale adoption. Methods: A scoping review was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and Westlaw International to identify articles dealing with legal issues in medical 3D printing. Results: Thirty-four articles fulfilling inclusion criteria were identified in medical/technical databases and fifteen in the legal database. The majority of articles dealt with the USA, while the EU was also prominently represented. Some common unresolved legal issues were identified, among them terminological confusion between custom-made and patient-matched devices, lack of specific legislation for patient-matched products, and the undefined legal role of CAD files both from a liability and from an intellectual property standpoint. Data protection was mentioned only in two papers and seems an underexplored topic. Conclusion: In this scoping review, several relevant articles and several common unresolved legal issues were identified including a need for terminological uniformity in medical 3D printing. The results of this work are planned to inform our own deeper legal analysis of these issues in the future.

Evidence for personalised medicine: mechanisms, correlation, and new kinds of black box

Personalised medicine (PM) has been discussed as a medical paradigm shift that will improve health while reducing inefficiency and waste. At the same time, it raises new practical, regulatory, and ethical challenges. In this paper, we examine PM strategies epistemologically in order to develop capacities to address these challenges, focusing on a recently proposed strategy for developing patient-specific models from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) so as to make individualised treatment predictions. We compare this strategy to two main PM strategies-stratified medicine and computational models. Drawing on epistemological work in the philosophy of medicine, we explain why these two methods, while powerful, are neither truly personalised nor, epistemologically speaking, novel strategies. Both are forms of correlational black box. We then argue that the iPSC models would count as a new kind of black box. They would not rely entirely on mechanistic knowledge, and they would utilise correlational evidence in a different way from other strategies-a way that would enable personalised predictions. In arguing that the iPSC models would present a novel method of gaining evidence for clinical practice, we provide an epistemic analysis that can help to inform the practical, regulatory, and ethical challenges of developing an iPSC system.