Religious Exemptions, Public Health, and School Vaccination Requirements

This Viewpoint examines 2 recent cases that encapsulate the debate on religious exemptions to school vaccination requirements and further argues against these exemptions for schoolchildren.

When Adolescents Disagree with Their Vaccine-Hesitant Parents about COVID-19 Vaccination

AbstractAs we journey into the fourth year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a majority of Americans express relief at a "return to normal," experience pandemic fatigue, or embrace the idea of living with COVID-19 in much the same way we live with the seasonal flu. But transition to a new phase of life with SARS-CoV-2 does not diminish the importance of vaccination. The US Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration recently recommended another round of booster dose for persons age 5 and up, or an initial series for those not previously vaccinated, with an updated bivalent formula that protects against both the original virus strain and Omicron subvariants that are now the dominant source of infection. By most accounts most of the population has been or will become infected with SARS-CoV-2. Suboptimal uptake of the COVID-19 vaccines among the approximately 25 million adolescents in the United States is a significant obstacle to population coverage, public health, and the health and well-being of adolescents. A major cause of low adolescent uptake is parental vaccine hesitancy. This article discusses parental vaccine hesitancy and argues that permitting independent adolescent consent to COVID-19 vaccination should be an ethical and policy priority as we continue to confront the threat of Omicron and other variants of the coronavirus. We discuss the central role of the pediatric healthcare team in caring for adolescent patients who disagree with their parents about vaccination.

Facilitating the inclusion of adults with intellectual disability as direct respondents in research: Strategies for fostering trust, respect, accessibility and engagement

BACKGROUND

Adults with intellectual disability experience disparities in social determinants of health and health outcomes. While new knowledge can advance health equity, adults with intellectual disability are frequently excluded from being direct respondents in research. Their inclusion requires addressing scientific and ethical challenges that contribute to their exclusion.

METHOD

We describe our multi-phased process, inclusive of community-engagement, to develop a self-report survey for adults with intellectual disability and share findings from an institutional ethnography conducted to identify strategies for facilitating inclusion. We also assessed indicators of the quality of these strategies.

RESULTS

We identified building trust, showing respect, designing in accessibility, maximising flexibility and allowing individualised accommodations as strategies that foster inclusion. Multiple indicators validate the effectiveness of these strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers can promote first-person decision-making and direct research participation by focusing on promoting accessibility, trust, respect and engagement.

A survey study of the attitudes and experiences of adults with intellectual disability regarding participation in research

BACKGROUND

Historically, people with intellectual disability have been exploited in and excluded from scientific research. To facilitate greater representation of adults with intellectual disability as research respondents, we sought to understand their interest in research participation and factors affecting their willingness to volunteer to participate, such as the core value of trust.

METHODS

Our survey measured attitudes of adults with intellectual disability towards research in general and research specifically involving adults with intellectual disability as respondents, as well as their prior research experiences, trust of researchers and interest in future research participation.

RESULTS

Participants reported positive attitudes towards research and strong interest in future participation opportunities, and trust of researchers was positively correlated to both. The belief that 'research about adults with intellectual disability is very important' also predicted participants' interest in future research participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that adults with intellectual disability support the direct involvement of adults with intellectual disability in research as respondents. Trustworthy rapport with researchers and positive views about research foster greater inclusion of this population.

Should a Teenager Be Allowed to Leave the Hospital AMA to Attend His Father's Funeral?

What should physicians do when an adolescent wishes to risk his physical health and leave the hospital to attend the funeral of his late father? What if the young man's mother, and only remaining guardian, both supports and encourages such a decision? In this Ethics Rounds discussion, we examine the legality, morality, and safety of discharging a minor under such conditions.

A quantitative study of attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability: Do stakeholders agree?

BACKGROUND

Attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability inform research policy and practice, impact interest in and support for research participation, and promote or discourage the generation of new knowledge to promote health among adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about these beliefs among the public and the scientific community.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We quantitatively studied attitudes among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. We predicted that adults with intellectual disability, and researchers would espouse views most consistent with disability rights, whereas IRB members, and to a lesser degree family, friends, and service providers, would espouse more protective views.

METHODS

We surveyed five hundred and twelve members of the five participant stakeholder groups on their attitudes toward the research participation of adults with intellectual disability.

RESULTS

We found broad support for research about people with intellectual disability, though slightly more tempered support for their direct participation therein. In general, IRB members and to some extent adults with intellectual disability endorsed direct participation less than others. We also found that adults with intellectual disability strongly believed in their consent capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources should be directed toward health-related research with adults with intellectual disability, and interventions should be pursued to address ethical challenges and promote beliefs consistent with human rights.

What's the Harm? Harms in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Scientific advances can improve the lives of adults with intellectual disability, yet concerns that research participation may impose harm impede scientific progress. What counts as harmful can be subjective and perceptions of harm may vary among stakeholders. We studied perspectives on the harmfulness of research events among adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board members. We found considerable variance. For example, adults with intellectual disability see exclusion from research as more harmful, but most psychosocial harms as less significant than others. All stakeholders agree that having someone else make the participation decision is harmful. Findings provide insights into the concept of harm and ethical research with adults with intellectual disability.

Is It Worth It? Benefits in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Including adults with intellectual disability in research promotes direct benefits to participants and larger societal benefits. Stakeholders may have different views of what count as benefits and their importance. We compared views on benefits in research with adults with intellectual disability among adults with intellectual disability, family and friends, service providers, researchers, and institutional review board members. We found that adults with intellectual disability value direct and indirect research benefits, and want to participate in research that offers them. Other stakeholders generally see less value in direct benefits and predict more tempered interest in research participation as compared to adults with intellectual disability. To promote respectful research participation, research policy and practice should incorporate the views of adults with intellectual disability.

Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

Human subjects research has a core commitment to participant well-being. This obligation is accentuated for once exploited populations such as adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about the public's views on appropriate safeguards for this population. We surveyed adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members to compare views on safeguards. We found many points of convergence of views, particularly for decision-making and participation. One trend is that adults with intellectual disability perceive greater safety in being engaged directly in recruitment, and recruitment by specific individuals. Researchers and IRB members need to consider community views to facilitate the safe and respectful inclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

"You can't be cold and scientific": community views on ethical issues in intellectual disability research

Perceptions, attitudes, and ethical concerns related to conducting research with adults with intellectual disability hinder scientific innovation to promote health. Yet we lack an understanding of community views on effective research policy and practice. To address this knowledge void, we qualitatively studied the views of adults with intellectual disability and those who provide them support regarding research participation of adults with intellectual disability. We found substantial support for their inclusion, particularly given the possibility of benefits to adults with intellectual disability, researchers, and society. We also found concerns for potential harm and differing ideas on how to promote safety. Our findings emphasize the importance of their inclusion in research, and the need for policies and practices that promote respect and safety.

Malpractice liability for informal consultations

BACKGROUND

Informal ("curbside") consults are widely used by primary care physicians. These interactions occur in person, by telephone, or even by e-mail. Exposure to malpractice liability is a frequent concern of subspecialty physicians and influences their willingness to engage in this activity. To assess this risk, we reviewed reported judicial opinions involving informal consultation by physicians.

METHODS

A search of the existing medical literature, and of the Westlaw national database was undertaken to identify reported judicial opinions involving informal physician consults that address whether informal consultations create a legal relationship between consulting specialist physicians and patients that gives rise to a legal duty of care owed by the consulting specialist to the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Courts have consistently ruled that no physician-patient relationship exists between a consultant and the patient who is the focus of the informal consultation. In the absence of such a relationship, the courts have found no grounds for a claim of malpractice. Malpractice risks associated with informal consultation appear to be minimal, regardless of the method of communication. While "informal consultation" is not a term used by the courts, the courts have applied a consistent set of criteria that help define the legal parameters of this activity.

It's ethical, but is it legal? Teaching ethics and law in the medical school curriculum

While Western medical ethics has ancient roots in the teachings of Hippocrates, its standing in the undergraduate medical curriculum is a distinctly modern development. Today, all of the 127 accredited U.S. medical schools offer formal biomedical ethics instruction, and nearly all offer instruction in the related discipline of health law. This article describes how biomedical ethics and health law are taught at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, one of 12 medical schools that offers separate required courses in both ethics and law. Often ethics and law overlap; often, to act ethically is to act legally. But medical students and practicing physicians also regularly confront dilemmas that pose the question, "It's ethical, but is it legal?" This article discusses the goals, methods, and core themes of teaching issues at the intersection of medicine, ethics, and law, and how the approach to this instruction is designed to offer students a tool kit to begin to deal effectively with these complex issues in professional life. Anat Rec (New Anat) 265:5-9, 2001.

Disclosing genetic information to family members. Do old paradigms fit the new medicine?

Launched in 1990, the Human Genome Project (HGP), an ambitious, international, federally funded project to map and sequence all human genes, has rapidly expanded our genetic knowledge. Not only does the HGP promise to arm physicians with impressive diagnostic tools, its ultimate target is radical improvement in therapeutic and preventive interventions in a new era of genetic medicine. At the same time, however, the genetic revolution poses momentous ethical, legal, and social questions. During the past decade, a substantial--and unresolved--discourse has emerged about such matters as genetic privacy, genetic discrimination, research with stored tissue samples, ownership of genetic material and information, gene patenting, and the genomic challenge to time-honored concepts of health and disease.

Malpractice claims against family physicians are the best doctors sued more?

BACKGROUND

Physicians who have been sued multiple times for malpractice are assumed to be less competent than those who have never been sued. However, there is a lack of data to support this assumption. Competence includes both knowledge and performance, and there are theoretical reasons to suspect that the most knowledgeable physicians may be sued the most.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of family physicians who were included in the Florida section of the 1996 American Medical Association's Physician Masterfile and who practiced in Florida at any time between 1971 and 1994 (N = 3686). The main outcome was the number of malpractice claims per physician adjusted for time in practice. Using regression methods, we analyzed associations between malpractice claims and measures of physician knowledge.

RESULTS

Risk factors for malpractice claims included graduation from a medical school in the United States or Canada (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.1), specialty board certification (IRR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1), holding the American Medical Association Physician's Recognition Award (IRR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7), and Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society membership (IRR 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0). Among board-certified family physicians, sued physicians who made no payments to a plaintiff had higher certification examination scores than nonsued physicians (53.48 vs 51.38, P < .01). The scores of sued physicians who made payments were similar to those of nonsued physicians (51.05 vs 51.38, P = .93).

CONCLUSIONS

Among Florida family physicians, the frequency of malpractice claims increased with evidence of greater medical knowledge.

Health care reform and the right to health care

Where is the right to health care in the national debate? The Clinton health care plan would translate moral commitment to equitable access to a decent minimum of health care into a legal right to health care. This article reviews health care reform from the perspective of a right to health care.

Brain death, religious freedom, and public policy: New Jersey's landmark legislative initiative

"Whole brain death" (neurological death) is well-established as a legal standard of death across the country. Recently, New Jersey became the first state to enact a statute recognizing a personal religious exemption (a conscience clause) protecting the rights of those who object to neurological death. The Act also mandates adoption through the regulatory process of uniform and up-to-date clinical criteria for determining neurological death.