Research biobank participants attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and health record confidentiality.

Understanding attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality is important in guiding policies regarding special protections for genetic/genomic information stored in electronic health records (EHR). The goals of this study were to determine biobank participants' attitudes towards genetic exceptionalism and confidentiality and whether those attitudes are related to their preference for return of genetic results. An online questionnaire was distributed to patients with an EHR and email address who had previously enrolled in the BioMe Biobank program. Most participants responded with similar levels of concern in scenarios involving the use of genetic information and other types of health information, suggesting that participants want similar protections for genetic data as other types of sensitive health information, particularly mental health and family history records. Of the 829 respondents, the majority had genetic exceptionalist views when directly asked, even though their concerns about confidentiality were similar for their genetic information and other health information. There were no differences in genetic exceptionalist views between those who had a documented preference to have genetic results returned and those who did not. Notably, for many participants, their recall of preference did not align with their documented preference. The majority of biobank participants were most anxious about the loss of confidentiality for genetic, mental health, and family history information, indicating that certain types of health information are considered more "sensitive" than others. These findings suggest the importance of assuring people participating in biobank research that the confidentiality of their "sensitive" health information is secured.

"But I Have a Pacer There Is No Point in Engaging in Hypothetical Scenarios": A Non-Imminently Dying Patient's Request for Pacemaker Deactivation.

In this case report, we describe a woman with advancing dementia who still retained decisional capacity and was able to clearly articulate her request for deactivation of her implanted cardiac pacemaker-a scenario that would result in her death. In this case, the patient had the autonomy to make her decision, but clinicians at an outside hospital refused to deactivate her pacemaker even though they were in unanimous agreement that the patient had capacity to make this decision, citing personal discomfort and a belief that her decision seemed out of proportion to her suffering. We evaluated her at our hospital, found her to have decision-making capacity, and deactivated her pacer resulting in her death about 9 days later. While some clinicians may be comfortable discussing patient preferences for device deactivation in patients who are imminently dying, we can find no reports in the literature of requests for device deactivation from patients with terminal diagnoses who are not imminently dying.

Physician services and costs after disclosure of diagnostic sequencing results in the NYCKidSeq program.

PURPOSE: To better understand the effects of returning diagnostic sequencing results on clinical actions and economic outcomes for pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders. METHODS: Longitudinal physician claims data after diagnostic sequencing were obtained for patients aged 0 to 21 years with neurologic, cardiac, and immunologic disorders with suspected genetic etiology. We assessed specialist consultation rates prompted by primary diagnostic results, as well as marginal effects on overall 18-month physician services and costs. RESULTS: We included data on 857 patients (median age: 9.6 years) with a median follow-up of 17.3 months after disclosure of diagnostic sequencing results. The likelihood of having ≥1 recommendation for specialist consultation in 155 patients with positive findings was high (72%) vs 23% in 443 patients with uncertain findings and 21% in 259 patients with negative findings (P < .001). Follow-through consultation occurred in 30%. Increases in 18-month physician services and costs following a positive finding diminished after multivariable adjustment. Also, no significant differences between those with uncertain and negative findings were demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Our study did not provide evidence for significant increases in downstream physician services and costs after returning positive or uncertain diagnostic sequencing findings. More large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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.

Should Compensation for Organ Donation Be Allowed?

The need for organs to transplant is clear. Due to the lack of transplants, people suffer, they die, and the cost of taking care of them until they die is huge. There is general agreement that it would be good to increase the supply of organs in order to meet the demand for organ transplantation.

The Uncommon Ethics of the Medical Profession: A Response to My Critics.

In responding to my critics, James Childress, Tom Beauchamp, Soren Holm, and Ruth Macklin, I reprise my arguments for medical ethics being an uncommon morality. I also elaborate on points that required further clarification. I explain the role of trust and trustworthiness in the creation of a profession. I also describe my views on the relationship of the medical profession to the society in which medicine is practiced. Finally, I defend my claim that medical ethics "is constructed by medical professionals for medical professionals" by describing the profession's unique vantage point for regulating and policing the profession's uncommon powers and privileges.

Justice in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation: rethinking the approach.

Policies for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine were implemented in early 2021 as soon as vaccine became available. Those responsible for the planning and execution of COVID-19 vaccination had to make choices about who received vaccination first while numerous authors offered their own recommendations. This paper provides an account of how such decisions should be made by focusing on the specifics of the situation at hand. In that light, I offer an argument for prioritising those who are likely vectors of the disease and a criticism of the victim-focused priority proposals put forward by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the UK National Health Service, and others. I also offer thoughts on how those authors may have gone astray.

The NYCKidSeq project: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial incorporating genomics into the clinical care of diverse New York City children.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, genomics is informing clinical practice, but challenges remain for medical professionals lacking genetics expertise, and in access to and clinical utility of genomic testing for minority and underrepresented populations. The latter is a particularly pernicious problem due to the historical lack of inclusion of racially and ethnically diverse populations in genomic research and genomic medicine. A further challenge is the rapidly changing landscape of genetic tests and considerations of cost, interpretation, and diagnostic yield for emerging modalities like whole-genome sequencing. METHODS: The NYCKidSeq project is a randomized controlled trial recruiting 1130 children and young adults predominantly from Harlem and the Bronx with suspected genetic disorders in three disease categories: neurologic, cardiovascular, and immunologic. Two clinical genetic tests will be performed for each participant, either proband, duo, or trio whole-genome sequencing (depending on sample availability) and proband targeted gene panels. Clinical utility, cost, and diagnostic yield of both testing modalities will be assessed. This study will evaluate the use of a novel, digital platform (GUÍA) to digitize the return of genomic results experience and improve participant understanding for English- and Spanish-speaking families. Surveys will collect data at three study visits: baseline (0 months), result disclosure visit (ROR1, + 3 months), and follow-up visit (ROR2, + 9 months). Outcomes will assess parental understanding of and attitudes toward receiving genomic results for their child and behavioral, psychological, and social impact of results. We will also conduct a pilot study to assess a digital tool called GenomeDiver designed to enhance communication between clinicians and genetic testing labs. We will evaluate GenomeDiver's ability to increase the diagnostic yield compared to standard practices, improve clinician's ability to perform targeted reverse phenotyping, and increase the efficiency of genetic testing lab personnel. DISCUSSION: The NYCKidSeq project will contribute to the innovations and best practices in communicating genomic test results to diverse populations. This work will inform strategies for implementing genomic medicine in health systems serving diverse populations using methods that are clinically useful, technologically savvy, culturally sensitive, and ethically sound. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03738098 . Registered on November 13, 2018 Trial Sponsor: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Contact Name: Eimear Kenny, PhD (Principal Investigator) Address: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Pl., Box 1003, New York, NY 10029 Email: eimear.kenny@mssm.edu.