"They just don't get it!" When family disagrees with expert opinion

Should Researchers Offer Results to Family Members of Cancer Biobank Participants? A Mixed-Methods Study of Proband and Family Preferences

BACKGROUND

Genomic analysis may reveal both primary and secondary findings with direct relevance to the health of probands' biological relatives. Researchers question their obligations to return findings not only to participants but also to family members. Given the social value of privacy protection, should researchers offer a proband's results to family members, including after the proband's death?

METHODS

Preferences were elicited using interviews and a survey. Respondents included probands from two pancreatic cancer research resources, plus biological and nonbiological family members. Hypothetical scenarios based on actual research findings from the two cancer research resources were presented; participants were asked return of results preferences and justifications. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed; survey data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Fifty-one individuals (17 probands, 21 biological relatives, 13 spouses/partners) were interviewed. Subsequently, a mailed survey was returned by 464 probands, 1,040 biological family members, and 399 spouses/partners. This analysis highlights the interviews, augmented by survey findings. Probands and family members attribute great predictive power and lifesaving potential to genomic information. A majority hold that a proband's genomic results relevant to family members' health ought to be offered. While informants endorse each individual's choice whether to learn results, most express a strong moral responsibility to know and to share, particularly with the younger generation. Most have few concerns about sharing genetic information within the family; rather, their concerns focus on the health consequences of not sharing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although additional studies in diverse populations are needed, policies governing return of genomic results should consider how families understand genomic data, how they value confidentiality within the family, and whether they endorse an ethics of sharing. A focus on respect for individual privacy-without attention to how the broad social and cultural context shapes preferences within families-cannot be the sole foundation of policy.

Investigating Trust, Expertise, and Epistemic Injustice in Chronic Pain

Trust is central to the therapeutic relationship, but the epistemic asymmetries between the expert healthcare provider and the patient make the patient, the trustor, vulnerable to the provider, the trustee. The narratives of pain sufferers provide helpful insights into the experience of pain at the juncture of trust, expert knowledge, and the therapeutic relationship. While stories of pain sufferers having their testimonies dismissed are well documented, pain sufferers continue to experience their testimonies as being epistemically downgraded. This kind of epistemic injustice has received limited treatment in bioethics. In this paper, we examine how a climate of distrust in pain management may facilitate what Fricker calls epistemic injustice. We critically interrogate the processes through which pain sufferers are vulnerable to specific kinds of epistemic injustice, such as testimonial injustice. We also examine how healthcare institutions and practices privilege some kinds of evidence and ways of knowing while excluding certain patient testimonies from epistemic consideration. We argue that providers ought to avoid epistemic injustice in pain management by striving toward epistemic humility. Epistemic humility, as a form of epistemic justice, may be the kind disposition required to correct the harmful prejudices that may arise through testimonial exchange in chronic pain management.

The weight attributed to patient values in determining best interests

In W v M and Others (Re M) the Court of Protection considered whether withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration was in the best interests of a person in minimally conscious state. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that in determining best interests the decision-maker must consider, so far as is reasonably ascertainable, the patient's wishes, feelings, beliefs and values. Baker J. indicated that a high level of specificity is required in order to attribute significant weight to these factors. It is preservation of life which carries substantial weight in the best interests' balance sheet. Could the (prior) values of a patient ever meet the probative standard necessary to offset the weight accorded to preservation of life? Rather than referencing the patient's values to specific circumstances and treatments they could be more effectively considered as part of the patient narrative, how the patient would want her life story to continue/cease.

Early indicators and risk factors for ethical issues in clinical practice

PURPOSE

Nurses in all clinical settings encounter ethical issues that frequently lead to moral distress. This critical incident study explored nurses' descriptions of ethically difficult situations to identify risk factors and early indicators of ethical conflicts.

METHODS

Employing the critical incident technique, researchers developed a questionnaire that collected information on ethically difficult situations, their risk factors and early indicators, nurse actions, and situational outcomes. Two nurse researchers independently analyzed and categorized data using a constant comparison technique.

FINDINGS

Most of the ethically difficult situations pertained to end-of-life care for children and adults. Conflicts in interpersonal relationships were prevalent. Nurses were especially moved by patient and family suffering and concerned about patient vulnerability, harm-benefit ratio, and patient autonomy. Researchers discovered risk factor categories for patients, families, healthcare providers, and health systems. Additionally, researchers found subcategories in six major categories of early indicators: signs of conflict, patient suffering, nurse distress, ethics violation, unrealistic expectations, and poor communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses are keenly aware of pertinent risk factors and early indicators of unfolding ethical conflicts. Many nurses reported feeling powerless in the face of ethical conflict. Research that develops interventions to strengthen nurses' voices in ethically difficult situation is warranted.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Nurses are in a key position to identify patient situations with a high risk for ethical conflict. Initiating early ethics consultation and interventions can alter the course of pending conflicts and diminish the potential for patient and family suffering and nurses' moral distress.