Pediatric Decision Making: Consensus Recommendations

Despite apparent disagreement in the scholarly literature on standards of pediatric decision making, a recognition that similar norms underpin many of the dominant frameworks motivated a June 2022 symposium "Best Interests and Beyond: Standards of Decision Making in Pediatrics" in St Louis, MO. Over the course of this 3-day symposium, 17 expert scholars (see author list) deliberated on the question "In the context of US pediatric care, what moral precepts ought to guide parents and clinicians in medical decision making for children?" The symposium and subsequent discussion generated 6 consensus recommendations for pediatric decision making, constructed with the primary goals of accessibility, teachability, and feasibility for practicing clinicians, parents, and legal guardians. In this article, we summarize these recommendations, including their justification, limitations, and remaining concerns.

An Ethical Analysis of Obesity as a Contraindication to Pediatric Liver Transplant Candidacy

Childhood obesity is becoming more prevalent in the United States (U.S.) and worldwide, including among children in need of liver transplant. Unlike with heart and kidney failure, end stage liver disease (ESLD) is unique in that no widely available medical technology can re-create the life-sustaining function a failing liver. Therefore, delaying life-saving liver transplant for weight loss, for example, is much harder, if not impossible for many pediatric patients, especially those with acute liver failure. For adults in the U.S., guidelines consider obesity a contraindication to liver transplant. While formal guidelines are lacking in children, many pediatric transplant centers also consider obesity a contraindication to pediatric liver transplant. Variations in practice among pediatric institutions may result in biased and ad hoc decisions that worsen health care inequities. In this paper we define and report the prevalence of childhood obesity among children with ESLD, 2) review existing guidelines for liver transplant in adults with obesity, 3) examine pediatric liver transplant outcomes and 4) discuss the ethical considerations of utilizing obesity as a contraindication to pediatric liver transplant informed by the principles of utility, justice and respect for persons.

An ethical analysis of obesity as a contraindication of pediatric kidney transplant candidacy

The inclusion of body mass index (BMI) as a criterion for determining kidney transplant candidacy in children raises clinical and ethical challenges. Childhood obesity is on the rise and common among children with kidney failure. In addition, obesity is reported as an independent risk factor for the development of CKD and kidney failure. Resultantly, more children with obesity are anticipated to need kidney transplants. Most transplant centers around the world use high BMI as a relative or absolute contraindication for kidney transplant. However, use of obesity as a relative or absolute contraindication for pediatric kidney transplant is controversial. Empirical data demonstrating poorer outcomes following kidney transplant in obese pediatric patients are limited. In addition, pediatric obesity is distributed inequitably among groups. Unlike adults, most children lack independent agency to choose their food sources and exercise opportunities; they are dependent on their families for these choices. In this paper, we define childhood obesity and review (1) the association and impact of obesity on kidney disease and kidney transplant, (2) existing adult guidelines and rationale for using high BMI as a criterion for kidney transplant, (3) the prevalence of childhood obesity among children with kidney failure, and (4) the existing literature on obesity and pediatric kidney transplant outcomes. We then discuss ethical considerations related to the use of obesity as a criterion for kidney transplant.

Parental Refusals of Blood Transfusions from COVID-19 Vaccinated Donors for Children Needing Cardiac Surgery

There is a growing trend of refusal of blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors. We highlight three cases where parents have refused blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors on behalf of their children in the setting of congenital cardiac surgery. These families have also requested accommodations such as explicit identification of blood from COVID-19 vaccinated donors, directed donation from a COVID-19 unvaccinated family member, or use of a non-standard blood supplier. We address the ethical challenges posed by these issues. We describe the current screening and safety processes for standard blood donation and explore the importance of donor anonymity and challenges with directed donation and non-standard blood suppliers. We present an ethical framework using the Best Interest Standard, the Zone of Parental Discretion, and the Harm Principle when considering these refusals. Finally, we provide recommendations for how to approach these requests as they potentially become more commonplace in pediatrics.

Staffing crisis capacity: a different approach to healthcare resource allocation for a different type of scarce resource

Severe staffing shortages have emerged as a prominent threat to maintaining usual standards of care during the COVID-2019 pandemic. In dire settings of crisis capacity, healthcare systems assume the ethical duty to maximise aggregate population-level benefit of existing resources. To this end, existing plans for rationing mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds in crisis capacity focus on selecting individual patients who are most likely to survive and prioritising these patients to receive scarce resources. However, staffing capacity is conceptually different from availability of these types of discrete resources, and the existing strategy of identifying and prioritising patients with the best prognosis cannot be readily adapted to fit this real-world scenario. We propose that two alternative approaches to staffing resource allocation offer a better conceptual fit: (1) prioritise the worst off: restrict access to acute care services and hospital admission for patients at relatively low clinical risk and (2) prioritise staff interventions with high near-term value: universally restrict selected interventions and treatments that require substantial staff time and/or energy but offer minimal near-term patient benefit. These strategies-while potentially resulting in care that deviates from usual standards-support the goal of maximising the aggregate benefit of scarce resources in crisis capacity settings triggered by staffing shortages. This ethical framework offers a foundation to support institutional leaders in developing operationalisable crisis capacity policies that promote fairness and support healthcare workers.

Caregiver COVID-19 vaccination for solid organ transplant candidates

An increasing proportion of transplant centers have implemented a mandate for vaccination against COVID-19 for solid organ transplant candidates. There has been comparatively little exploration of the ethical considerations of mandating vaccination of a candidate's primary caregiver, despite a high risk of transmission given the close nature of contact between the candidate and caregiver. We examine how a caregiver mandate can improve overall utility in organ allocation, particularly in circumstances where vaccine effectiveness at preventing transmission and serious disease is low among recipients but high in caregivers. Our analysis reveals how sensitive such mandates must be to the evolving circumstances of disease severity, transmissibility, and vaccine effectiveness: as the facts change, the degree of benefit gained and therefore the degree of infringement on access to transplant and caregiver choice that is tolerated will likewise change.

Health Care Clinicians and Product Promotion by Industry

Medical pharmaceutical and device manufacturers are essential in making products that benefit patients, and collaboration between health care clinicians and the industry is necessary for the design and manufacture of these medical products. However, health care clinicians must recognize that their duties and the interests of the industry may at times diverge. Relationships with the industry, even seemingly minor ones, have the potential to shape the decisions made on behalf of patients. The marketing divisions of pharmaceutical and medical device firms view health care clinicians as targets of their efforts, and some of the interactions that occur between the industry and health care clinicians have the potential to alter decision making in ways that may not necessarily benefit patients. Health care clinicians have an ethical duty to recognize situations and marketing strategies that are designed to influence their choice of diagnostic and therapeutic options for their patients. At a minimum, health care clinicians should be aware of the techniques used to attempt to alter their behavior and guard against them.

Health Care Clinicians and Product Promotion by Industry

Medical pharmaceutical and device manufacturers are essential in making products that benefit patients, and collaboration between health care providers and industry is necessary in the design, testing, and manufacture of these medical products. However, health care providers must recognize that their duties and the interests of industry may, at times, diverge. Relationships with industry, even seemingly minor ones, have the potential to shape the decisions made on behalf of patients. The marketing divisions of pharmaceutical and medical device firms view health care providers as a target of their efforts, and some of the interactions that occur between industry and health care providers have the potential to alter decision making in ways that may not necessarily benefit patients. Health care providers have an ethical duty to recognize situations and marketing strategies that are designed to influence their choice of diagnostic and therapeutic options for their patients. Health care providers should be aware of the techniques used to attempt to alter their behavior and guard against them.

Perspectives of Triage Team Members Participating in Statewide Triage Simulations for Scarce Resource Allocation During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Washington State

IMPORTANCE

The COVID-19 pandemic prompted health care institutions worldwide to develop plans for allocation of scarce resources in crisis capacity settings. These plans frequently rely on rapid deployment of institutional triage teams that would be responsible for prioritizing patients to receive scarce resources; however, little is known about how these teams function or how to support team members participating in this unique task.

OBJECTIVE

To identify themes illuminating triage team members' perspectives and experiences pertaining to the triage process.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study was conducted using inductive thematic analysis of observations of Washington state triage team simulations and semistructured interviews with participants during the COVID-19 pandemic from December 2020 to February 2021. Participants included clinician and ethicist triage team members. Data were analyzed from December 2020 through November 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Emergent themes describing the triage process and experience of triage team members.

RESULTS

Among 41 triage team members (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [11.4] years; 21 [51.2%] women) who participated in 12 simulations and 21 follow-up interviews, there were 5 Asian individuals (12.2%) and 35 White individuals (85.4%); most participants worked in urban hospital settings (32 individuals [78.0%]). Three interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) understanding the broader approach to resource allocation: participants strove to understand operational and ethical foundations of the triage process, which was necessary to appreciate their team's specific role; (2) contending with uncertainty: team members could find it difficult or feel irresponsible making consequential decisions based on limited clinical and contextual patient information, and they grappled with ethically ambiguous features of individual cases and of the triage process as a whole; and (3) transforming mindset: participants struggled to disentangle narrow determinations about patients' likelihood of survival to discharge from implicit biases and other ethically relevant factors, such as quality of life. They cited the team's open deliberative process, as well as practice and personal experience with triage as important in helping to reshape their usual cognitive approach to align with this unique task.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that there were challenges in adapting clinical intuition and training to a distinctive role in the process of scarce resource allocation. These findings suggest that clinical experience, education in ethical and operational foundations of triage, and experiential training, such as triage simulations, may help prepare clinicians for this difficult role.

Rhetoric, Persuasion, Compulsion, and the Stubborn Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy

Despite the impact of vaccination on the control and prevention of many infectious diseases, vaccine opposition and hesitancy remain significant barriers to fully protecting individuals and communities against serious disease. The primary response to the problem of vaccine hesitancy includes persuasion and some degree of compulsion, usually in the form of vaccine mandates. Persuasion, if it can be successfully leveraged to provide sufficient control of disease spread, is the ethically preferred approach. Yet persuasion has proven less than adequate, leading to increasing calls for vaccination mandates and the elimination of nonmedical exemptions to those mandates. Four scholars have recently examined the underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy in the interest of improving rhetoric surrounding vaccination. This article reviews those books and offers suggestions for optimizing the strategy of persuasion in the interest of reducing the need for compulsion.

Functionality of Scarce Healthcare Resource Triage Teams During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-Institutional Simulation Study

Plans for allocating scarce healthcare resources during the COVID-19 pandemic commonly involve the activation of institutional triage teams. These teams would be responsible for selecting patients who are most likely to survive to be prioritized to receive scarce resources. However, there is little empirical support for this approach.

DESIGN

High-fidelity triage-team simulation study.

SETTING

Healthcare institutions in Washington state.

SUBJECTS

Triage teams, consisting of at least two senior clinicians and a bioethicist.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants reviewed a limited amount of deidentified information for a diverse sample of critically ill patients. Teams then assigned each patient to one of five prioritization categories defined by likelihood of survival to hospital discharge. The process was refined based on observation and participant feedback after which a second phase of simulations was conducted.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Feasibility was assessed by the time required for teams to perform their task. Prognostic accuracy was assessed by comparing teams' prediction about likelihood of survival to hospital discharge with real-world discharge outcomes. Agreement between the teams on prognostic categorization was evaluated using kappa statistics. Eleven triage team simulations (eight in phase 1 and three in phase 2) were conducted from December 2020 to February 2021. Overall, teams reviewed a median of 23 patient cases in each session (interquartile range [IQR], 17-29) and spent a median of 102 seconds (IQR, 50-268) per case. The concordance between expected survival and real-world survival to discharge was 71% (IQR, 64-76%). The overall agreement between teams for placement of patients into prognostic categories was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the potential feasibility, accuracy, and effectiveness of institutional triage teams informed by a limited set of patient information items as part of a strategy for allocating scarce resources in healthcare emergencies. Additional work is needed to refine the process and adapt it to local contexts.

The limits of refusal: An ethical review of solid organ transplantation and vaccine hesitancy

Patients pursuing solid organ transplantation are encouraged to receive many vaccines on an accelerated timeline. Vaccination prior to transplantation offers the best chance of developing immunity and may expand the pool of donor organs that candidates can accept without needing posttransplant therapy. Furthermore, transplant recipients are at greater risk for acquiring vaccine-preventable illnesses or succumbing to severe sequelae of such illnesses. However, a rising rate of vaccine refusal has challenged transplant centers to address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy. Transplant centers may need to consider adopting a policy of denial of solid organ transplantation on the basis of vaccine refusal for non-medical reasons (i.e., philosophical or religious objections or personal beliefs that vaccines are unnecessary or unsafe). Arguments supporting such a policy are motivated by utility, stewardship, and beneficence. Arguments opposing such a policy emphasize justice and respect for persons, and seek to avoid worsening inequities or medical coercion. This paper examines these arguments and situates them within the special cases of pediatric transplantation, emergent transplantation, and living donation. Ultimately, a uniform national policy addressing vaccine refusal among transplant candidates is needed to resolve this ethical dilemma and establish a consistent, fair, and standard approach to vaccine refusal in transplantation.

Hans Jonas and the Ethics of Human Subjects Research

In the 1960s, human experimentation and public funding of research increased significantly, and with the rise of the modern teaching hospital, the distinction between clinical care and experimentation became more and more blurred. Yet little in the way of meaningful government regulation existed in the United States prior to 1970. In 1966, Paul Freund, the president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, appointed an interdisciplinary working group to consult on the issues being raised by human experimentation. Contributions from the group were published in a 1969 issue of Daedalus titled Ethical Aspects of Experimentation with Human Subjects. In the lead essay, Hans Jonas challenged then-conventional understandings of the moral problems posed by research involving humans and argued for an alternative moral framework. To Jonas, it mattered whether the physician was trying to make the patient well rather than trying to find out how to improve the health of future patients.

A 2020 Executive Order That Threatens Progress in Shared Decision-Making

The “Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children” threatens decades of progress in shared decision-making for imperiled newborns.

Should Health Care Institutions Mandate SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination for Staff?

Health care workers have been prioritized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination, but vaccine hesitancy among workers may limit uptake. Institutions may wish to consider SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mandates for health care workers, but such proposals raise important ethical questions. Arguments supporting mandates emphasize the proposed favorable balance of harms and benefits for both individuals and communities, as well as moral duties of health care workers and organizations. Arguments in opposition seek to challenge some claims about utility and raise additional concerns about infringement on autonomy, damage to organizational relationships, and injustice. While available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remain under an experimental designation, mandates may be excessively problematic, but following approval by the Food and Drug Administration mandates may be reconsidered. The authors summarize ethical arguments and practical considerations, concluding that mandates may be ethically permissible in select circumstances.

Vaccine ethics: an ethical framework for global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines

This paper addresses the just distribution of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and sets forth an ethical framework that prioritises frontline and essential workers, people at high risk of severe disease or death, and people at high risk of infection. Section I makes the case that vaccine distribution should occur at a global level in order to accelerate development and fair, efficient vaccine allocation. Section II puts forth ethical values to guide vaccine distribution including helping people with the greatest need, reducing health disparity, saving the most lives and promoting narrow social utility. It also responds to objections which claim that earlier years have more value than later years. Section III puts forth a practical ethical framework to aid decision-makers and compares it with alternatives.

Pandemics and Beyond: Considerations When Personal Risk and Professional Obligations Converge

With each novel infectious disease outbreak, there is scholarly attention to healthcare providers' obligation to assume personal risk while they care for infected patients. While most agree that healthcare providers have a duty to assume some degree of risk, the extent of this obligation remains uncertain. Furthermore, these analyses rarely examine healthcare institutions' obligations during these outbreaks. As a result, there is little practical guidance for healthcare institutions that are forced to weigh whether or when to exclude healthcare providers from providing care or allow them to opt out from providing care to protect themselves. This article uses the COVID-19 pandemic to examine the concept of risk and the professional duties of both healthcare providers and healthcare institutions, and proposes a framework that can be used to make concrete institutional policy choices. This framework should be a useful tool for any hospital, clinic, or health agency that must make these choices during the current pandemic and beyond.

Competencies and Milestones for Bioethics Trainees: Beyond ASBH's Healthcare Ethics Certification and Core Competencies

Clinical ethics training programs are responsible for preparing their trainees to be competent ethics consultants worthy of the trust of patients, families, surrogates, and healthcare professionals. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) offers a certification examination for healthcare ethics consultants, no tools exist for the formal evaluation of ethics trainees to assess their progress toward competency. Medical specialties accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) use milestones to report trainees' progress along a continuum of professional development as a means of "operationalizing and implementing" medical competencies. Utilizing the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation and the ACGME and American Board of Pediatrics' (ABP) Pediatric Milestones Project, we developed milestones for 17 subcompetencies in clinical ethics consultation and academic bioethics. As the field of clinical ethics becomes more standardized, such tools will be needed to promote the development of robust training programs and to certify that their graduates are competent practitioners.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content.

DESIGN

Survey and mixed-methods content analysis.

SETTING

North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

PARTICIPANTS

Program directors.

MEASUREMENTS

Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations.

LIMITATION

The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs.

CONCLUSION

Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Adolescent Brain Development and Medical Decision-making

With a few notable exceptions, adolescents do not possess the legal authority to provide consent for or refuse medical interventions. However, in some situations, the question arises regarding whether a mature minor should be permitted to make a life-altering medical decision that would be challenged if made by the minor's parent. In this article, I explore what we currently know about the adolescent brain and how that knowledge should frame our understanding of adolescent decision-making. The prevailing approach to determining when adolescents should have their decisions respected in the medical and legal context, an approach that is focused on establishing capacity under a traditional informed consent model, will be reviewed and critiqued. I will suggest that the traditional model is insufficient and explore the implications for the adolescent role in health care decision-making.

Do Clinical Ethics Fellowships Prepare Trainees for their First Jobs? A National Survey of Former Clinical Ethics Fellows

Clinical ethics consultants provide a range of services in hospital settings and in teaching environments. Training to achieve the skills needed to meet the expectations of employers comes in various forms, ranging from on-the-job training to formal fellowship training programs. We surveyed graduates of clinical ethics fellowships to evaluate their self-reported preparedness for their first job after fellowship training. The results indicated several areas of need, including greater exposure to program-building skills, quality improvement skills, and approaches to working with members of higher administration. These data will be of use to educators as well as to fellows who advocate for elements of training in preparation for their first position.

Decision Making on Behalf of Children: Understanding the Role of the Harm Principle

Thirty years ago, Buchanan and Brock distinguished between guidance principles and interference principles in the setting of surrogate decision making on behalf of children and incompetent adult patients. They suggested that the best interest standard could serve as a guidance principle, but was insufficient as an interference principle. In this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Ross argues that the best interest standard can serve as neither a guidance or interference principle for decision making on behalf of children, but that her model of constrained parental autonomy can serve as both. I will argue that Buchanan and Brock were correct that a single model or standard cannot serve as both a guidance and interference principle in pediatrics and that the best interest standard is a sufficient guidance principle. The harm principle fulfills the conditions necessary for an interference principle, at least insofar as deciding when state intervention to interfere with parental decision making is justified.

"We Can Do Anything but We Can't Do Everything": Exploring the Perceived Impact of International Pediatric Programs on U.S. PICUs

Purpose: Every year, an increasing number of international patients seek medical care in the United States (U.S.), yet little is known about their impact. Based on single institution experiences, we wanted to explore the perceived impact of international pediatric patients on large academic U.S. pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), as they are already taxed systems. Methods: To explore current perceptions, seven geographically diverse institutions who advertise care for international patients on their websites and have ≥24 PICU beds were identified after IRB approval was obtained. We consented and interviewed PICU division chiefs or medical directors from each institution regarding their demographics and international patients. Common themes were identified. Results: Participating institutions were diverse in geographic location, census, and resource allocation strategies. Five of the seven institutions reported the presence of a formal international patient program. Four of those five reported an increase in international patients receiving PICU care over the past 5 years. International patients sought complex surgeries, advanced cancer treatments and metabolic/genetic evaluations. We identified three primary domains that require further exploration and research: (1) cultural and language differences leading to barriers in providing optimal care to international patients (2) institutional financial considerations, and (3) perceived positive and negative impact on the care of local/domestic patient populations. Conclusions: The presence of international programs raises a number of important ethical questions, including whether clinicians have a greater duty to serve residents of the local community as opposed to international patients when resources are limited. Further exploration is warranted.

Ethical Guidance for Selecting Clinical Trials to Receive Limited Space in an Immunotherapy Production Facility

Our aims are to (1) set forth a multiprinciple system for selecting among clinical trials competing for limited space in an immunotherapy production facility that supplies products under investigation by scientific investigators; (2) defend this system by appealing to justice principles; and (3) illustrate our proposal by showing how it might be implemented. Our overarching aim is to assist manufacturers of immunotherapeutic products and other potentially breakthrough experimental therapies with the ethical task of prioritizing requests from scientific investigators when production capacity is limited.

Achieving an Optimal Childhood Vaccine Policy

Policies to remove parents' ability to opt-out from school immunization requirements on the basis of religious or personal beliefs (ie, nonmedical exemptions) may be a useful strategy to increase immunization rates and prevent outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease. However, there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of this strategy and the range of possible outcomes. We advocate for a more deliberative process through which a broad range of outcomes is scrutinized and the balance of values underlying the policy decision to eliminate nonmedical exemptions is clearly articulated. We identify 3 outcomes that require particular consideration before policies to eliminate nonmedical exemptions are implemented widely and outline a process for making the values underlying such policies more explicit.

From protection to entitlement: selecting research subjects for early phase clinical trials involving breakthrough therapies

Our goals are to (1) set forth and defend a multiprinciple system for selecting individuals who meet trial eligibility criteria to participate in early phase clinical trials testing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia when demand for participation exceeds spaces available in a trial; (2) show the relevance of these selection criteria to other breakthrough experimental therapies; (3) argue that distinct distributive justice criteria apply to breakthrough experimental therapies, standard research and healthcare and (4) argue that as evidence of benefit increases, the emphasis of justice in research shifts from protecting subjects from harm to ensuring fair access to benefits.

Ethical Concerns When Minors Act as Standardized Patients

When minors are asked to assist medical educators by acting as standardized patients (SPs), there is a potential for the minors to be exploited. Minors deserve protection from exploitation. Such protection has been written into regulations governing medical research and into child labor laws. But there are no similar guidelines for minors' work in medical education. This article addresses the question of whether there should be rules. Should minors be required to give their informed consent or assent? Are there certain practices that could cause harm for the children who become SPs? We present a controversial case and ask a number of experts to consider the ethical issues that arise when minors are asked to act as SPs in medical education.

Decision-Making for Children with Disabilities: Parental Discretion and Moral Ambiguity

We argue that medical decisions on behalf of children should be made with the welfare of the child as the primary interest, that parents should generally be allowed to determine which options optimize the interests of their child, and that those decisions should be formally challenged only when the parental decision places the child at substantial risk of a serious harm as compared to the option favored by the health-care provider. In situations where moral ambiguity exists and no possible solution could unequivocally be declared the right or good one, a parental decision favoring one or the other of the reasonable options should be supported. Parents should be provided with adequate time to consider information provided and weigh the various options presented. If parents find themselves unable to make a decision, we suggest several strategies for shared decision-making. Finally, we recommend setting time points for reassessment of the situation following each therapeutic change to allow reevaluation of whether the chosen path should be altered.

Ebola Virus Disease: Ethics and Emergency Medical Response Policy

Caring for patients affected with Ebola virus disease (EVD) while simultaneously preventing EVD transmission represents a central ethical challenge of the EVD epidemic. To address this challenge, we propose a model policy for resuscitation and emergent procedure policy of patients with EVD and set forth ethical principles that lend support to this policy. The policy and principles we propose bear relevance beyond the EVD epidemic, offering guidance for the care of patients with other highly contagious, virulent, and lethal diseases. The policy establishes (1) a limited code status for patients with confirmed or suspected EVD. Limited code status means that a code blue will not be called for patients with confirmed or suspected EVD at any stage of the disease; however, properly protected providers (those already in full protective equipment) may initiate resuscitative efforts if, in their clinical assessment, these efforts are likely to benefit the patient. The policy also requires that (2) resuscitation not be attempted for patients with advanced EVD, as resuscitation would be medically futile; (3) providers caring for or having contact with patients with confirmed or suspected EVD be properly protected and trained; (4) the treating team identify and treat in advance likely causes of cardiac and respiratory arrest to minimize the need for emergency response; (5) patients with EVD and their proxies be involved in care discussions; and (6) care team and provider discretion guide the care of patients with EVD. We discuss ethical issues involving medical futility and the duty to avoid harm and propose a utilitarian-based principle of triage to address resource scarcity in the emergency setting.

Physician Dismissal of Families Who Refuse Vaccination: An Ethical Assessment

Thousands of U.S. parents choose to refuse or delay the administration of selected vaccines to their children each year, and some choose not to vaccinate their children at all. While most physicians continue to provide care to these families over time, using each visit as an opportunity to educate and encourage vaccination, an increasing number of physicians are choosing to dismiss these families from their practice unless they agree to vaccinate their children. This paper will examine this emerging trend along with the reasons given by those who advocate such an approach. I will argue that the strategy of refusing to allow families into a clinic unless they agree to vaccinate their children is misguided, and the arguments for doing so fail to stand up to close scrutiny. Such a strategy does not benefit the child or the health of the community, and may have a negative impact on both. Furthermore, some of the arguments in support of dismissal policies ignore the importance of professional obligation and appear to favor self-interest over the interest of the patient.

A quality of life quandary: a framework for navigating parental refusal of treatment for co-morbidities in infants with underlying medical conditions

Parental refusal of a recommended treatment is not an uncommon scenario in the neonatal intensive care unit. These refusals may be based upon the parents' perceptions of their child's projected quality of life. The inherent subjectivity of quality of life assessments, however, can exacerbate disagreement between parents and healthcare providers. We present a case of parental refusal of surgical intervention for necrotizing enterocolitis in an infant with Bartter syndrome and develop an ethical framework in which to consider the appropriateness of parental refusal based upon an infant's projected quality of life.

Assent in research: the voices of adolescents

PURPOSE

Adolescents join clinical research after investigators obtain their positive agreement or "assent." Although intended to respect adolescents, little is known about the views of adolescents or their parents regarding assent or research enrollment decisions. This study aimed to better understand perspectives of adolescent research participants and their parents about assent and parental permission.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with 13- through 17-year-old teens, enrolled in clinical research at the National Institutes of Health or Seattle Children's Hospital, and separately with one parent.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-seven adolescent-parent pairs were interviewed. Teens were well distributed by age and gender, represented a wide variety of research and illnesses ranging in severity from mild to life threatening; 20% were healthy volunteers. Teens and parents were generally satisfied with the assent/permission process. Normally, they made the enrollment decision together and teens wanted parents' input and support. About 25% of teens reported pressure to enroll, not only from parents or relatives but also from doctors/nurses/research teams. Only 2% of teens preferred not to sign a consent form.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some differing views about how decisions should be made, the current assent/permission process is perceived as satisfactorily respectful by most teens in research. Many teens want to sign consent forms, and teens' signatures should generally be sought. Flexible guidance allows research teams and Institutional Review Boards to customize the assent process for teens in particular studies in order to facilitate an appropriate balance between giving teens a voice reflective of their emerging independence and enabling supportive collaboration with parents.