The Charlie Gard Case, and the Ethics of Obstructing International Transfer of Seriously Ill Children

Tracheostomy and long-term invasive ventilation decision-making in children: A scoping review

An increasing number of children are surviving critical illnesses requiring tracheostomy/long-term ventilation (LTV). This scoping review seeks to collate the available evidence on decision-making for tracheostomy/LTV in children. Systematic searches of electronic databases and websites were conducted for articles and reports. Inclusion criteria included: (1) children 0-18 years old; (2) described use of tracheostomy or tracheostomy/LTV; and (3) information on recommendations for tracheostomy decision-making or decision-making experiences of family-caregivers or health care providers. Articles not written in English were excluded. Of the 4463 records identified through database search and other methods, a total of 84 articles, 2 dissertations, 1 book chapter, 3 consensus statement/society guidelines, and 8 pieces of grey literature were included. Main thematic domains identified were: (1) legal and moral standards for decision-making; (2) decision-making models, roles of decision-makers, and decisional aids towards a shared decision-making model; (3) experiences and perspectives of decision-makers; (4) health system and society considerations; and (5) conflict resolution and legal considerations. A high degree of uncertainty and complexity is involved in tracheostomy/LTV decision-making. There is a need for a standardized decision-support process that is consistent with a child's best interests and shared decision-making. Strategies for optimizing communication and mechanism for managing disputes are needed.

Conscience and Vaccines: Lessons from Babylon 5 and COVID-19

Babylon 5, like other great sci-fi franchises, touched on important ethical questions. Two ethical conundrums relating to the series' main characters included providing life-saving treatment to a child against their parents' wishes and potential involvement with a highly beneficial but morally dubious medication. I use these cases to discuss some aspects of the COVID-19 vaccines' development and roll-out, demonstrating that people (be it patients or clinicians) might object to some vaccines due to reasonable ethics and safety-based concerns rather than due to an anti-vaxxer mind-set. I highlight that it would be disingenuous to lump these two groups of objections together for not all objections to specific vaccines are objections to vaccination in general. Rather, governments and pharmaceutical companies should seriously engage with the concerns of reasonable objectors to provide citizens with the appropriate products and ensure large vaccination uptake - in the case of COVID-19 this should include giving patients the choice of the product they will be inoculated with.