For your interest? The ethical acceptability of using non-invasive prenatal testing to test 'purely for information'.

Non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is an emerging form of prenatal genetic testing that provides information about the genetic constitution of a foetus without the risk of pregnancy loss as a direct result of the test procedure. As with other prenatal tests, information from NIPT can help to make a decision about termination of pregnancy, plan contingencies for birth or prepare parents to raise a child with a genetic condition. NIPT can also be used by women and couples to test purely 'for information'. Here, no particular action is envisaged following the test; it is motivated entirely by an interest in the result. The fact that NIPT can be performed without posing a risk to the pregnancy could give rise to an increase in such requests. In this paper, we examine the ethical aspects of using NIPT 'purely for information', including the competing interests of the prospective parents and the future child, and the acceptability of testing for 'frivolous' reasons. Drawing on several clinical scenarios, we claim that arguments about testing children for genetic conditions are relevant to this debate. In addition, we raise ethical concerns over the potential for objectification of the child. We conclude that, in most cases, using NIPT to test for adult-onset conditions, carrier status or non-serious traits presenting in childhood would be unacceptable.

Assessment of undergraduate medical students' understanding and application of ethics: must do better.

Current methods used to assess newly qualified doctors have limited ability to assess reasoning about complex issues. This editorial looks at the points this raises in relation to the new medical licensing assessment.

The medical licensing assessment will fall short of determining whether a UK medical graduate behaves ethically.

UK medical graduates will soon need to pass the medical licensing assessment, which assesses skills and knowledge in ethics using multiple choice questions (eg single best answer questions) and objective structured clinical examination. However, educational leaders have recognised that these methods lack the sophistication needed to accurately assess medical ethics. The reasons are two-fold. First, there may be a knowledge and practice gap in medical schools when it comes to preparing students for the assessment. To this end, this article shares peer advice about how best to use objective structured clinical examinations and single best answer questions for assessing medical ethics to help prepare students for the medical licensing assessment. Second, the design of the assessment is unlikely to adequately measure graduates' ethical values and behaviour in real world scenarios. Further work is needed to design assessments that are sophisticated enough to examine candidates' ethical reasoning and their actual behaviour.

Conscientious objections in pharmacy practice in Great Britain.

Pharmacists who refuse to provide certain services or treatment for reasons of conscience have been criticized for failing to fulfil their professional obligations. Currently, individual pharmacists in Great Britain can withhold services or treatment for moral or religious reasons, provided they refer the patient to an alternative source. The most high-profile cases have concerned the refusal to supply emergency hormonal contraception, which will serve as an example in this article. I propose that the pharmacy profession's policy on conscientious objections should be altered slightly. Building on the work of Brock and Wicclair, I argue that conscientious refusals should be acceptable provided that the patient is informed of the service, the patient is redirected to an alternative source, the refusal does not cause an unreasonable burden to the patient, and the reasons for the refusal are based on the core values of the profession. Finally, I argue that a principled categorical refusal by an individual pharmacist is not morally permissible. I claim that, contrary to current practice, a pharmacist cannot legitimately claim universal exemption from providing a standard service, even if that service is available elsewhere.

Survey of UK clinicians' approaches to decision making in neonatal intestinal failure.

Background: Outcomes for neonatal intestinal failure (IF) have improved significantly over the past two decades, however, there is no consensus for decision making among UK paediatric subspecialists. Objectives: The aim was to describe clinician's attitudes to decision making in neonatal IF and examine variation between subspecialties. Methods: Neonatologists, paediatric surgeons and gastroenterologists were surveyed electronically. They were asked if they would recommend active or palliative care or allow the parents to decide in several scenarios; or if they considered treatment morally obligatory or impermissible. Results: Of 147 respondents, 81% of gastroenterologists would recommend active care (34.6% regardless of parental decision) for a term infant with total gut Hirschsprung's compared with 46% and 33% of surgeons and neonatologists. No gastroenterologist would recommend palliation while 23% of both neonatologists and surgeons would. Similarly, 77% of surgeons and 73% of neonatologists would recommend palliation for a 28-week infant with IF and bilateral parenchymal haemorrhages compared with 27% of gastroenterologists.Prognostic estimates also varied. A term baby with IF was estimated to have a survival of >80% at 5 years by 58% of gastroenterologists compared with 11.5% and 2.7% of surgeons and neonatologists. Only 11.5% of surgeons and 2.6% of neonatologist believed a 26-week preterm with IF would have a 5-year survival >60% compared with 59% of gastroenterologists. Conclusion: There is substantial variation in views about outcomes and management choices both within and between specialties; with gastroenterologists being consistently more positive. This is likely to lead to unjustified variation in counselling and parental choices.

Ethical considerations for choosing between possible models for using NIPD for aneuploidy detection.

Recent scientific advances mean the widespread introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for chromosomal aneuploidies may be close at hand, raising the question of how NIPD should be introduced as part of antenatal care pathways for pregnant women. In this paper, the authors examine the ethical implications of three hypothetical models for using NIPD for aneuploidy in state-funded healthcare systems and assess which model is ethically preferable. In comparing the models, the authors consider their respective timings; how each model would fit with current screening and diagnostic tests offered to pregnant women; the implications of offering NIPD at different stages of pregnancy; and the potential for each model to support reproductive autonomy and informed decision-making. The authors conclude by favouring a model that would be offered at 11-13 weeks gestation, alongside existing combined screening, provided that this is accompanied by measures to maximise informed decision-making, for example, provision of adequate pretest and post-test counselling.

Should non-invasiveness change informed consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis?

Empirical evidence suggests that some health professionals believe consent procedures for the emerging technology of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) should become less rigorous than those currently used for invasive prenatal testing. In this paper, we consider the importance of informed consent and informed choice procedures for protecting autonomy in those prenatal tests which will give rise to a definitive result. We consider whether there is anything special about NIPD that could sanction a change to consent procedures for prenatal diagnosis or otherwise render informed decision-making less important. We accept the claim that the absence of risk of miscarriage to some extent lessens the gravity of the decision to test compared with invasive methods of testing. However, we also claim that the definitive nature of the information received, and the fact that the information can lead to decisions of great significance, makes NIPD an important choice. This choice should only be made by means of a rigorous and appropriately supported decision-making process (assuming that this is what the pregnant woman wants). We conclude that, on balance, consent procedures for NIPD should mirror those for invasive testing, albeit without the need to emphasise procedure-related risk.

'Best interests' in paediatric intensive care: an empirical ethics study.

OBJECTIVE: In English paediatric practice, English law requires that parents and clinicians agree the 'best interests' of children and, if this is not possible, that the courts decide. Court intervention is rare and the concept of best interests is ambiguous. We report qualitative research exploring how the best interests standard operates in practice, particularly with decisions related to planned non-treatment. We discuss results in the light of accounts of best interests in the medical ethics literature. DESIGN: We conducted 39 qualitative interviews, exploring decision making in the paediatric intensive care unit, with doctors, nurses, clinical ethics committee members and parents whose children had a range of health outcomes. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Parents and clinicians indicated differences in their approaches to deciding the child's best interests. These were reconciled when parents responded positively to clinicians' efforts to help parents agree with the clinicians' view of the child's best interests. Notably, protracted disagreements about a child's best interests in non-treatment decisions were resolved when parents' views were affected by witnessing their child's physical deterioration. Negotiation was the norm and clinicians believed avoiding the courts was desirable. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity to the long-term interests of parents of children with life-limiting conditions is defensible but must be exercised proportionately. Current approaches emphasise negotiation but offer few alternatives when decisions are at an impasse. In such situations, the instrumental role played by a child's deterioration and avoidance of the courts risks giving insufficient weight to the child's interests. New approaches to decision making are needed.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders: exploring the ethics.

Non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders is now clearly on the horizon. This new technology offers obvious clinical benefits such as safe testing early in pregnancy. Before widespread implementation, it is important to consider the possible ethical implications. Four hypothetical scenarios are presented that highlight how ethical ideals of respect for autonomy, privacy and fairness may come into play when offering non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders. The first scenario illustrates the moral case for using these tests for 'information only', identifying a potential conflict between larger numbers of women seeking the benefits of the test and the wider social impact of funding tests that do not offer immediate clinical benefit. The second scenario shows how the simplicity and safety of non-invasive prenatal testing could lead to more autonomous decision-making and, conversely, how this could also lead to increased pressure on women to take up testing. In the third scenario we show how, unless strong safeguards are put in place, offering non-invasive prenatal testing could be subject to routinisation with informed consent undermined and that woman who are newly diagnosed as carriers may be particularly vulnerable. The final scenario introduces the possibility of a conflict of the moral rights of a woman and her partner through testing for single gene disorders. This analysis informs our understanding of the potential impacts of non-invasive prenatal testing for single gene disorders on clinical practice and has implications for future policy and guidelines for prenatal care.

The feasibility and acceptability of conducting a trial of specialist medical care and the Lightning Process in children with chronic fatigue syndrome: feasibility randomized controlled trial (SMILE study).

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is relatively common in children with limited evidence for treatment. The Phil Parker Lightning Process (LP) is a trademarked intervention, which >250 children use annually. There are no reported studies investigating the effectiveness or possible side effects of LP. METHODS: The trial population was drawn from the Bath and Bristol NHS specialist paediatric CFS or ME service. The study was designed as a pilot randomized trial with children (aged 12 to 18 years) comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process. Integrated qualitative methodology was used to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the recruitment, randomization and interventions. RESULTS: A total of 56 children were recruited from 156 eligible children (1 October 2010 to 16 June 2012). Recruitment, randomization and both interventions were feasible and acceptable. Participants suggested changes to improve feasibility and acceptability and we incorporated the following in the trial protocol: stopped collecting 6-week outcomes; introduced a second reminder letter; used phone calls to collect primary outcomes from nonresponders; informed participants about different approaches of each intervention and changed our recommendation for the primary outcome for the full study from school attendance to disability (SF-36 physical function subscale) and fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Scale). CONCLUSIONS: Conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate an alternative treatment such as LP is feasible and acceptable for children with CFS or ME. Feasibility studies that incorporate qualitative methodology enable changes to be made to trial protocols to improve acceptability to participants. This is likely to improve recruitment rate and trial retention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Feasibility study first randomization: 29 September 2010. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81456207 (31 July 2012). Full trial first randomization: 19 September 2012.

Comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process for chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SMILE Trial).

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a relatively common and potentially serious condition with a limited evidence base for treatment. Specialist treatment for paediatric CFS/ME uses interventions recommended by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) including cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and activity management. The Lightning Process (LP) is a trademarked intervention derived from osteopathy, life-coaching and neuro-linguistic programming, delivered over three consecutive days as group sessions. Although over 250 children with CFS/ME attend LP courses each year, there are no reported studies on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. METHODS: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial is set within a specialist paediatric CFS/ME service in the south west of England. Children and young people with CFS/ME (n = 80 to 112), aged 12 to 18 years old will be randomised to specialist medical care (SMC) or SMC plus the LP. The primary outcome will be physical function (SF-36 physical function short form) and fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Scale). DISCUSSION: This study will tell us whether adding the LP to SMC is effective and cost-effective compared to SMC alone. This study will also provide detailed information on the implementation of the LP and SMC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81456207 (31 July 2012).

Will the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnostic testing erode informed choices? An experimental study of health care professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Informed choice is a fundamental concept within prenatal care. The present study assessed the extent to which the introduction of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) of Down's syndrome may undermine the process of making informed choices to undergo prenatal testing or screening for Down's syndrome by altering the quality and quantity of pre-test counselling. METHODS: 231 obstetricians and midwives were randomly allocated one of three vignettes, each describing a different type of test: (a) invasive prenatal diagnosis (IPD), (b) non-invasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) or (c) Down's syndrome screening (DSS). Participants were then asked to complete a questionnaire assessing (1) the information considered important to communicate to women, (2) whether test offer and uptake should take place on different days, and (3) whether signed consent forms should be obtained prior to testing. RESULTS: Across the three test types, five out of the seven presented topics were considered equally important to communicate, including the information that testing is the woman's choice. Compared with participants receiving the IPD vignette, those receiving the NIPD and DSS vignettes were less likely to report that counselling and testing should occur on different days (IPD 94.7% versus 74.1% and 73.9% for NIPD and DSS respectively, p=.001) and that written consent was a necessity (IPD 96.1% versus 68.3% and 75.4% for NIPD and DSS respectively, p<.001). CONCLUSION: This study provides the first empirical evidence to demonstrate that practitioners may view the consent process for NIPD differently to IPD. There is potential for the introduction of NIPD to undermine women making informed choices in the context of prenatal diagnostic testing for conditions like DS. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Given the importance of informed choice in reproductive decision-making, implementation of any programme based on NIPD should be designed to facilitate this.

Informed choice in prenatal testing: a survey among obstetricians and gynaecologists in Europe and Asia.

PURPOSE: To ascertain the extent to which the value obstetricians and gynaecologists attach to informed choice in the context of prenatal testing varies across countries. METHOD: The values attached to informed choice and the perceived importance of test decisions reflecting the views of others considered significant to pregnant women were assessed and compared across obstetricians and gynaecologists in six countries: UK (n = 176), Netherlands (n = 331), Italy (n = 254), Greece (n = 116), China (n = 116) and India (n = 123). RESULTS: While respondents from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands almost unanimously believed prenatal testing should reflect a parental choice (94%), substantial minorities in Greece, India, and China and to a lesser extent Italy, believed testing should either reflect a family choice or no choice (11-41%). Respondents who attached a low value to the views of others attached greater value to parental choice. Multinomial logistic regression analysis confirmed the independent predictive value of a country and perceived importance of test decision reflecting the views of significant others. CONCLUSION: While many obstetricians and gynaecologists favour prenatal testing reflecting a parental choice, the extent to which their values may affect the likelihood that informed choice is realised, may vary across countries. The impact of these findings on patient autonomy is raised.