Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Cytotherapy ; 25(7): 712-717, 2023 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37097267

RESUMO

Patient interest in non-trial access pathways to investigational cell-and gene-based interventions, such as expanded access in the USA, is increasing, while the regulatory and business environments for non-trial access in the cell and gene therapy field are shifting. Against this background, in 2022 the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy (ISCT) established a Working Group on Expanded Access to identify practical, ethical, and regulatory issues emerging from the use (and possible misuse) of the expanded access pathway in the cell and gene therapy field. In this Short Report, the Working Group sets the stage for its future activities by analyzing the history of expanded access and identifying three examples of questions that we anticipate arising as uses of expanded access for investigational cell and gene-based interventions increase and evolve.


Assuntos
Ensaios de Uso Compassivo , Drogas em Investigação , Humanos , Terapia Genética , Engenharia Genética
2.
JAMA ; 322(15): 1519-1520, 2019 10 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31613342
4.
Chest ; 146(4 Suppl): e134S-44S, 2014 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25144203

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Significant legal challenges arise when health-care resources become scarce and population-based approaches to care are implemented during severe disasters and pandemics. Recent emergencies highlight the serious legal, economic, and health impacts that can be associated with responding in austere conditions and the critical importance of comprehensive, collaborative health response system planning. This article discusses legal suggestions developed by the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Task Force for Mass Critical Care to support planning and response efforts for mass casualty incidents involving critically ill or injured patients. The suggestions in this chapter are important for all of those involved in a pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials. METHODS: Following the CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology, the Legal Panel developed 35 key questions for which specific literature searches were then conducted. The literature in this field is not suitable to provide support for evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process resulting in seven final suggestions. RESULTS: Acceptance is widespread for the health-care community's duty to appropriately plan for and respond to severe disasters and pandemics. Hospitals, public health entities, and clinicians have an obligation to develop comprehensive, vetted plans for mass casualty incidents involving critically ill or injured patients. Such plans should address processes for evacuation and limited appeals and reviews of care decisions. To legitimize responses, deter independent actions, and trigger liability protections, mass critical care (MCC) plans should be formally activated when facilities and practitioners shift to providing MCC. Adherence to official MCC plans should contribute to protecting hospitals and practitioners who act in good faith from liability. Finally, to address anticipated staffing shortages during severe and prolonged disasters and pandemics, governments should develop approaches to formally expand the availability of qualified health-care workers, such as through using official foreign medical teams. CONCLUSIONS: As a fundamental element of health-care and public health emergency planning and preparedness, the law underlies critical aspects of disaster and pandemic responses. Effective responses require comprehensive advance planning efforts that include assessments of complex legal issues and authorities. Recent disasters have shown that although law is a critical response tool, it can also be used to hold health-care stakeholders who fail to appropriately plan for or respond to disasters and pandemics accountable for resulting patient or staff harm. Claims of liability from harms allegedly suffered during disasters and pandemics cannot be avoided altogether. However, appropriate planning and legal protections can help facilitate sound, consistent decision-making and support response participation among health-care entities and practitioners.


Assuntos
Consenso , Cuidados Críticos/legislação & jurisprudência , Estado Terminal/terapia , Desastres , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/organização & administração , Pandemias , Ferimentos e Lesões/terapia , Tomada de Decisões , Humanos
5.
Chest ; 146(4 Suppl): e145S-55S, 2014 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25144262

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Mass critical care entails time-sensitive decisions and changes in the standard of care that it is possible to deliver. These circumstances increase provider uncertainty as well as patients' vulnerability and may, therefore, jeopardize disciplined, ethical decision-making. Planning for pandemics and disasters should incorporate ethics guidance to support providers who may otherwise make ad hoc patient care decisions that overstep ethical boundaries. This article provides consensus-developed suggestions about ethical challenges in caring for the critically ill or injured during pandemics or disasters. The suggestions in this article are important for all of those involved in any pandemic or disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials. METHODS: We adapted the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Guidelines Oversight Committee's methodology to develop suggestions. Twenty-four key questions were developed, and literature searches were conducted to identify evidence for suggestions. The detailed literature reviews produced 144 articles. Based on their expertise within this domain, panel members also supplemented the literature search with governmental publications, interdisciplinary workgroup consensus documents, and other information not retrieved through PubMed. The literature in this field is not suitable to support evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS: We report the suggestions that focus on five essential domains: triage and allocation, ethical concerns of patients and families, ethical responsibilities to providers, conduct of research, and international concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Ethics issues permeate virtually all aspects of pandemic and disaster response. We have addressed some of the most pressing issues, focusing on five essential domains: triage and allocation, ethical concerns of patients and families, ethical responsibilities to providers, conduct of research, and international concerns. Our suggestions reflect the consensus of the Task Force. We recognize, however, that some suggestions, including those related to end-of-life care, may be controversial. We highlight the need for additional research and dialogue in articulating values to guide health-care decisions during disasters.


Assuntos
Consenso , Estado Terminal/terapia , Desastres , Serviços Médicos de Emergência/ética , Pandemias , Triagem/ética , Ferimentos e Lesões/terapia , Tomada de Decisões/ética , Humanos
6.
Cell Stem Cell ; 12(3): 285-91, 2013 Mar 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23472870

RESUMO

The nature of compensation for women who donate eggs (oocytes) for research remains a contentious issue internationally. This position paper lays out the arguments for, and discusses the arrangements in which, a modest payment might be ethically justifiable.


Assuntos
Oócitos , Pesquisa com Células-Tronco/ética , Feminino , Humanos , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/ética
7.
Regen Med ; 7(3): 397-408, 2012 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22458727

RESUMO

In 2009, New York became the first US state to implement a policy permitting researchers to use public funds to reimburse women who donate oocytes directly and solely to stem cell research, not only for the woman's out-of-pocket expenses, but also for the time, burden and discomfort associated with the donation process. The debate about the propriety of such compensation was recently renewed with the publication of a stem cell study in which women were provided with compensation for donating their eggs. This article explores the scientific and ethical rationales that led to New York's decision to allow donor compensation. The multifaceted deliberation process and comprehensive policies may serve as a model for other states and countries considering the issue of oocyte donor compensation.


Assuntos
Compensação e Reparação/ética , Regulamentação Governamental , Doação de Oócitos/economia , Doação de Oócitos/legislação & jurisprudência , Política Organizacional , Pesquisa com Células-Tronco/economia , Pesquisa com Células-Tronco/legislação & jurisprudência , Compensação e Reparação/legislação & jurisprudência , Feminino , Humanos , New York , Doação de Oócitos/ética , Pesquisa com Células-Tronco/ética
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA