Research opportunities and ethical considerations for heart and lung xenotransplantation research: A report from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute workshop

Xenotransplantation offers the potential to meet the critical need for heart and lung transplantation presently constrained by the current human donor organ supply. Much was learned over the past decades regarding gene editing to prevent the immune activation and inflammation that cause early organ injury, and strategies for maintenance of immunosuppression to promote longer-term xenograft survival. However, many scientific questions remain regarding further requirements for genetic modification of donor organs, appropriate contexts for xenotransplantation research (including nonhuman primates, recently deceased humans, and living human recipients), and risk of xenozoonotic disease transmission. Related ethical questions include the appropriate selection of clinical trial participants, challenges with obtaining informed consent, animal rights and welfare considerations, and cost. Research involving recently deceased humans has also emerged as a potentially novel way to understand how xeno-organs will impact the human body. Clinical xenotransplantation and research involving decedents also raise ethical questions and will require consensus regarding regulatory oversight and protocol review. These considerations and the related opportunities for xenotransplantation research were discussed in a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and are summarized in this meeting report.

Ethically cleared to launch?

Rules are needed for human research in commercial spaceflight.

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

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.

Rethinking Ethical Categories in the Age of Technology

Over time, ethical judgments evolve, but so do the phenomena they are applied to. For example, plagiarism is a modern concept. Before the early eighteenth century, works did not generally have references or acknowledgments, and ideas were freely exchanged. As writing became an occupation, copying others' words became "unethical." As cut and paste, music mash-up, and other technological forms of exchange make copying the works of others simple, the idea of plagiarism is eroding, and perhaps will eventually even be discarded. The same may be true with privacy. As with plagiarism, it was not really until the eighteenth century that our modern idea of privacy was established. To younger generations, raised on social media, online life is predicated on trading personal information for access. The undermining of former standards of privacy may suggest that privacy may also eventually become an outmoded concept.

Ethical Challenges Arising in the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (ABPD) Task Force

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of ethical challenges, but key among these has been the possibility that health care systems might need to ration scarce critical care resources. Rationing policies for pandemics differ by institution, health system, and applicable law. Most seem to agree that a patient's ability to benefit from treatment and to survive are first-order considerations. However, there is debate about what clinical measures should be used to make that determination and about other factors that might be ethically appropriate to consider. In this paper, we discuss resource allocation and several related ethical challenges to the healthcare system and society, including how to define benefit, how to handle informed consent, the special needs of pediatric patients, how to engage communities in these difficult decisions, and how to mitigate concerns of discrimination and the effects of structural inequities.

Treatment as prevention and cure towards global eradication of hepatitis C virus

The availability of curative, direct-acting antiviral drugs against hepatitis C virus (HCV) sparks an ethical call for HCV eradication and provides essential tools to spearhead the effort. Challenges include increasing awareness of the chronic hepatitis C epidemic, garnering sufficient public, private, and governmental financial will to invest in the necessary resources, developing pangenotypic drug regimens for global application, and mitigating ethical concerns. To achieve these goals, stakeholders including clinicians, public health professionals, legislators, advocates, and industry can employ a variety of strategies such as increasing HCV screening, implementing treatment as prevention, and improving linkage to care, as well as developing innovative pricing and payment solutions, stimulating innovation through local drug development in high-prevalence regions, continuing vaccine development, and creating efficiencies in the marketing and distribution of educational materials and drug treatments.

Guidelines for the ethical use of neuroimages in medical testimony: report of a multidisciplinary consensus conference

SUMMARY

With rapid advances in neuroimaging technology, there is growing concern over potential misuse of neuroradiologic imaging data in legal matters. On December 7 and 8, 2012, a multidisciplinary consensus conference, Use and Abuse of Neuroimaging in the Courtroom, was held at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Through this interactive forum, a highly select group of experts-including neuroradiologists, neurologists, forensic psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neuroscientists, legal scholars, imaging statisticians, judges, practicing attorneys, and neuroethicists-discussed the complex issues involved in the use of neuroimaging data entered into legal evidence and for associated expert testimony. The specific contexts of criminal cases, child abuse, and head trauma were especially considered. The purpose of the conference was to inform the development of guidelines on expert testimony for the American Society of Neuroradiology and to provide principles for courts on the ethical use of neuroimaging data as evidence. This report summarizes the conference and resulting recommendations.

Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils

Detection of deception and confirmation of truth telling with conventional polygraphy raised a host of technical and ethical issues. Recently, newer methods of recording electromagnetic signals from the brain show promise in permitting the detection of deception or truth telling. Some are even being promoted as more accurate than conventional polygraphy. While the new technologies raise issues of personal privacy, acceptable forensic application, and other social issues, the focus of this paper is the technical limitations of the developing technology. Those limitations include the measurement validity of the new technologies, which remains largely unknown. Another set of questions pertains to the psychological paradigms used to model or constrain the target behavior. Finally, there is little standardization in the field, and the vulnerability of the techniques to countermeasures is unknown. Premature application of these technologies outside of research settings should be resisted, and the social conversation about the appropriate parameters of its civil, forensic, and security use should begin.

Property and privacy paradigms of "marketable spit": an ethical and legal counterpart to blood?

Major advances in the testing of oral fluid (e.g., saliva) may lead to the diagnosis and treatment of previously undiagnosed conditions and may enable dentists to manage oral disease more effectively. Such use of another body fluid, blood, is already well established. Blood is a complex tissue that has been extensively researched and is now used for a wide variety of diagnostic tests. It is also regarded as a form of property with ethical and legal dimensions. If saliva is to fulfill a similar role, it should perhaps be granted those same protections. This paper advances the concept that saliva should be considered a form of property, possibly within personal biological materials law. The emerging potential for the development of marketable products from oral fluids raises the issue of protecting the research participant's ethical and legal rights. In particular, violation of privacy and genetic discrimination may arise from the testing of salivary DNA. Respect for autonomy requires that the clinician inform a patient or research participant about his or her rights to property and privacy as these may pertain to oral fluid.

Emerging neurotechnologies for lie detection and the fifth amendment

The development of a successful lie detector has been a dream of governments and law enforcement since ancient times. A Hindu Veda written around 900 B.C.E. suggests a strategy for detecting lying behavior in suspects:

Six hundred years later, the Greeks were attempting to detect lies by feeling the suspect's pulse. What is interesting about both the early Hindu and Greek examples is that the methods employed were empirical; the interrogators were looking for physiological changes in the body that corresponded to the mental state in question.

How do women decide? Accepting or declining BRCA1/2 testing in a nationwide clinical sample in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To examine the role of the practitioner, informed consent, and genetic counseling in genetic testing decisions and to assess their relative influence on women's decision to have clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

METHODS

Qualitative study using in-depth open-ended interviews with 68 women who had considered clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

RESULTS

Slightly less than half of the women who had considered BRCA1/2 testing were found to have had a clear and preexisting desire to test or not to test, irrespective of practitioner attitude or advice.

CONCLUSION

The decision to accept or decline genetic testing is the result of a complex process that goes beyond interactions between health care providers and patients, indicating a caution against exclusive reliance on informed consent or counseling encounters.

Reasons scientists avoid thinking about ethics

Science is a powerful force for change in modern society. As the professionals at its helm, scientists have a unique responsibility to shepherd that change with thoughtful advocacy of their research and careful ethical scrutiny of their own behavior.

What is in a cause? Exploring the relationship between genetic cause and felt stigma

PURPOSE

Concern over stigma as a consequence of genetic testing has grown in response to the recent increase in genetic research and testing resulting from the Human Genome Project. However, whether a genetic or hereditary basis necessarily confers a stigma to a condition remains unexamined.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative interview study with 86 individuals with one of four conditions: deafness or hearing loss, breast cancer, sickle cell disease, and cystic fibrosis. The first two groups were divided approximately between people who ascribed their conditions to a genetic or hereditary cause and those who did not.

RESULTS

Respondents interpreted genetic or hereditary causes and nongenetic causes in a variety of ways. Subjects with breast cancer reported the most consistently negative interpretation of genetic cause. This response concerned future ill health, not an enduring sense of stigma. Deaf and hard of hearing subjects provided the most consistently positive comments about a genetic or hereditary basis to their condition, casting familial hearing loss as a vital component of group and individual identity. Respondents with sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis offered similar and positive interpretations of the genetic cause of their condition insofar as it meant their conditions were not contagious.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some subjects report feeling stigmatized as a result of their condition, this stigmatization is not uniformly associated with the condition's cause, genetic or otherwise. Instead, stigma emerges from a variety of sources in the context of the lived experience of a particular condition.

How do women decide? Accepting or declining BRCA1/2 testing in a nationwide clinical sample in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To examine the role of the practitioner, informed consent, and genetic counseling in genetic testing decisions and to assess their relative influence on women's decision to have clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

METHODS

Qualitative study using in-depth open-ended interviews with 68 women who had considered clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

RESULTS

Slightly less than half of the women who had considered BRCA1/2 testing were found to have had a clear and preexisting desire to test or not to test, irrespective of practitioner attitude or advice.

CONCLUSION

The decision to accept or decline genetic testing is the result of a complex process that goes beyond interactions between health care providers and patients, indicating a caution against exclusive reliance on informed consent or counseling encounters.

Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative

Medical training must at some point use live patients to hone the skills of health professionals. But there is also an obligation to provide optimal treatment and to ensure patients' safety and well-being. Balancing these 2 needs represents a fundamental ethical tension in medical education. Simulation-based learning can help mitigate this tension by developing health professionals' knowledge, skills, and attitudes while protecting patients from unnecessary risk. Simulation-based training has been institutionalized in other high-hazard professions, such as aviation, nuclear power, and the military, to maximize training safety and minimize risk. Health care has lagged behind in simulation applications for a number of reasons, including cost, lack of rigorous proof of effect, and resistance to change. Recently, the international patient safety movement and the U.S. federal policy agenda have created a receptive atmosphere for expanding the use of simulators in medical training, stressing the ethical imperative to "first do no harm" in the face of validated, large epidemiological studies describing unacceptable preventable injuries to patients as a result of medical management. Four themes provide a framework for an ethical analysis of simulation-based medical education: best standards of care and training, error management and patient safety, patient autonomy, and social justice and resource allocation. These themes are examined from the perspectives of patients, learners, educators, and society. The use of simulation wherever feasible conveys a critical educational and ethical message to all: patients are to be protected whenever possible and they are not commodities to be used as conveniences of training.

Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: promises and perils

Detection of deception and confirmation of truth telling with conventional polygraphy raised a host of technical and ethical issues. Recently, newer methods of recording electromagnetic signals from the brain show promise in permitting the detection of deception or truth telling. Some are even being promoted as more accurate than conventional polygraphy. While the new technologies raise issues of personal privacy, acceptable forensic application, and other social issues, the focus of this paper is the technical limitations of the developing technology. Those limitations include the measurement validity of the new technologies, which remains largely unknown. Another set of questions pertains to the psychological paradigms used to model or constrain the target behavior. Finally, there is little standardization in the field, and the vulnerability of the techniques to countermeasures is unknown. Premature application of these technologies outside of research settings should be resisted, and the social conversation about the appropriate parameters of its civil, forensic, and security use should begin.

Religious responses to neuroscientific questions

This chapter explores the three areas where neuroscience challenges religion. First, in religion's ethical response to neuroscientific findings; secondly, how religion responds to the claims of some neuroscientists that current research refutes ideas such as ensoulment; and finally, through the field that has come to be known as neurotheology, the neuroscientific study of the religious impulse itself.

Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative

Medical training must at some point use live patients to hone the skills of health professionals. But there is also an obligation to provide optimal treatment and to ensure patients' safety and well-being. Balancing these two needs represents a fundamental ethical tension in medical education. Simulation-based learning can help mitigate this tension by developing health professionals' knowledge, skills, and attitudes while protecting patients from unnecessary risk. Simulation-based training has been institutionalized in other high-hazard professions, such as aviation, nuclear power, and the military, to maximize training safety and minimize risk. Health care has lagged behind in simulation applications for a number of reasons, including cost, lack of rigorous proof of effect, and resistance to change. Recently, the international patient safety movement and the U.S. federal policy agenda have created a receptive atmosphere for expanding the use of simulators in medical training, stressing the ethical imperative to "first do no harm" in the face of validated, large epidemiological studies describing unacceptable preventable injuries to patients as a result of medical management. Four themes provide a framework for an ethical analysis of simulation-based medical education: best standards of care and training, error management and patient safety, patient autonomy, and social justice and resource allocation. These themes are examined from the perspectives of patients, learners, educators, and society. The use of simulation wherever feasible conveys a critical educational and ethical message to all: patients are to be protected whenever possible and they are not commodities to be used as conveniences of training.

Treatment, enhancement, and the ethics of neurotherapeutics

Emerging neurotechnologies, including psychopharmaceuticals, brain stimulation, implantable brain chips, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and brain imaging raise a number of ethical questions. One of the most contentious is the proper role of these technologies in improving or increasing mental and neurological traits and skills in those with no identifiable pathology. The "enhancement" debate centers around a number of concerns and philosophical approaches to the proper role of medicine, therapeutics, and desirable human qualities. Arguements for and against neurological enhancement are reviewed, and historical and social perspectives are offered.

The freelance bioethicist, chapter one

It was a hot summer night, the kind where the air is so thick it seems to ooze into your lungs. I heard a knock on the door. “Come in,” I complained.

Reply to Barbara Pfeffer Billauer's "On Judaism and genes

The response of Barbara Pfeffer Billauer to my article "If I Am Only My Genes, What Am I? Genetic Essentialism and a Jewish Response" highlights the conflict between a sociological understanding of religion and the resistance to such analysis from within a faith tradition. Ms. Billauer makes three main points; the first strangely credits to me, and then attacks, an argument the article takes great pains to refute, but does so to emphasize the faith's prescient guidance in matters scientific. The second attempts to rebut my critical analysis of the tensions inhernet in Jewish views of the body with an insistence that Judaism so perfectly balances the relation between the sacred and profane that there is not now, and never was, the slightest tension between corporeality and divinity in the Jewish corpus. The third uses my article as vehicle for her to expound on an interesting but tangential formulation of three Jewish terms. In all, the need to defend her interpretation of Judaism's solutions to the problems the article raises results in un-self-critical and ahistorical theorizing, making the utility of her arguments in a discussion of the sociology of religion unsatisfactory.

Commercialization of BRCA1/2 testing: practitioner awareness and use of a new genetic test

It was our purpose to determine the characteristics of practitioners in the United States who were among the first to inquire about and use the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) genetic tests outside of a research protocol. Questionnaires were mailed to all practitioners who requested information on or ordered a BRCA1/2 test from the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) Genetic Diagnostics Laboratory (GDL) between October 1, 1995 and January 1, 1997 (the first 15 months the test was available for clinical use). The response rate was 67% of practitioners; 54% (121/225) were genetic counselors, 39% (87/225) were physicians or lab directors. Most physicians were oncologists, pathologists, or obstetrician/gynecologists, but 20% practiced surgery or internal or general medicine. Fifty-six percent (125/225) had ordered a BRCA1/2 test for a patient; most of the rest had offered or were willing to offer testing. Of those who had offered testing, 70% had a patient decline BRCA1/2 testing when offered. Practitioners perceived that patients' fear of loss of confidentiality was a major reason for declining. Nearly 60% of practitioners reported that their patients had access to a genetic counselor, but 28% of physicians who ordered a BRCA1/2 test reported having no such access, despite the GDL's counseling requirement. The proportion of physicians reporting no access to genetic counselors for their patients increased from 22.4% in the first half of the study to 50% in the last half. Many practitioners have an interest in BRCA1/2 testing, despite policy statements that discourage its use outside of research protocols. Practitioner responses suggest that patient interest in testing seems to be tempered by knowledge of potential risks. An apparent increase in patient concern about confidentiality and inability to pay for testing could indicate growing barriers to testing. Although most practitioners reported having access to counseling facilities, perceived lack of such access among an increasing proportion of practitioners indicates that lab requirements for counseling are difficult to enforce and suggests that an increasing proportion of patients may not be getting access to counseling.

Updating protections for human subjects involved in research. Project on Informed Consent, Human Research Ethics Group

For decades, all federally funded research involving human subjects has been subject to regulations that require the informed consent of the subject and oversight by the local institution. These regulations last underwent major revision in 1981 and have remained unchanged despite significant changes in the nature of clinical science, the financial sources of research support, and the institutional environment in which clinical research is conducted. In the intervening years, doubt has evolved as to whether the regulations currently in place adequately protect the welfare and rights of research subjects in today's clinical research environment and whether the costs, in terms of time, bureaucracy, and delay, are justified by the level of protection afforded. The Human Research Ethics Group, administered by the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, extensively reviewed the status of existing human subjects protections with the aim of making recommendations to improve and reform the regulations. Here, we present recommendations constituting a consensus of the group members for reform in 3 key areas: protecting subject populations with special needs and vulnerabilities, oversight by institutional review boards, and regulatory policy.