ASCO Ethical Guidance for the US Oncology Community Where Reproductive Health Care Is Limited by Law.

The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned federal protections for abortion rights, making way for states to enact abortion bans with or without exceptions for the health or life of the pregnant patient. Patient care across many areas of medicine including oncology continues to be affected. Although the change in the legal landscape is widely felt, the core ethical considerations for physicians do not change because of restrictions on the practice of medicine. ASCO offers this guidance to assist US oncologists and institutions who must balance limitations with established ethical duties. This paper articulates principles for cancer care and pregnancy, offers a framework for ethical reflection and action for oncologists who care for pregnant patients, and makes recommendations for individual and institutional action to support evidence-based, patient-centered care in the United States where abortion is illegal or access is limited.

A Call to Action: Ethics Committee Roundtable Recommendations for Addressing Burnout and Moral Distress in Oncology.

Oncologist well-being is critical to initiating and maintaining the physician-patient relationship, yet many oncologists suffer from symptoms of burnout. Burnout has been linked to poor physical and mental health, as well as increased medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and workforce attrition. In this Call to Action article, we discuss causes of and interventions for burnout and moral distress in oncology, highlight existing interventions, and provide recommendations for addressing burnout and improving well-being at the individual and organizational levels to deliver ethical, quality cancer care.

Let's Talk About Those Herbs You Are Taking: Ethical Considerations for Communication With Patients With Cancer About Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Oncologists face ethical challenges when patients use potentially harmful complementary and alternative medicine in addition to or instead of conventional treatments for their cancer. For example, a patient may forego effective cancer treatment in favor of alternative therapies and suffer significant harm as a result. Similarly, false beliefs about the efficacy of complementary therapies may complicate the process of shared decision making about cancer treatment. In this vignette, we discuss clinicians' obligations and provide recommendations for ethically sound communication practices in this clinical context.

Responding to Patient Requests for Hastened Death: Physician Aid in Dying and the Clinical Oncologist.

Physician aid in dying (PAD) or assisted suicide is becoming legal in more US jurisdictions. Meanwhile, the needs of terminally ill patients with cancer are receiving greater attention, including the integration of palliative care into oncology practice. This article highlights a case vignette of a patient with advanced cancer who requests PAD from her oncologist, as a backdrop to help the practicing oncologist examine his or her moral stance regarding participation in aid in dying. The article concludes by offering a framework within which the practicing oncologist can receive and process a patient's request for PAD.

Qualitative Study of Oncologists' Views on the CancerLinQ Rapid Learning System.

INTRODUCTION: ASCO is actively developing CancerLinQ (CLQ), a rapid learning system for oncology care. The purpose of this study was to explore providers' opinions and concerns related to implementation of CLQ, including ethical issues. METHODS: Twenty key informant oncologists were recruited for individual in-depth interviews through ASCO contacts, purposively selected to represent a wide variety of cancer specialties as well as different levels of familiarity with CLQ (familiar v unfamiliar). Qualitative data analysis was completed by a three-member team using an inductive narrative approach. Themes were examined by participants familiar and unfamiliar with CLQ, and quotations exemplifying each theme are provided. RESULTS: Participants' opinions centered on three main themes: (1) general attitudes regarding learning health care systems, (2) optimal approach to patient consent, and (3) appropriateness of data use. There was clear support for the use of big data in clinical decision making for patients and in research. Unfamiliar participants expressed concerns regarding system protections against patient identification, and both familiar and unfamiliar participants discussed the dilemma of including genetic information. Respondents were in agreement with notifying patients early; however, there was debate over whether patients should opt in or opt out. Overall, there was great concern regarding sharing data with drug companies and insurers. CONCLUSION: Understanding oncologists' perspectives regarding the ethical implications of CLQ implementation is critical to its success. More research is needed on the impact of rapid learning systems on providers, patients, health systems, and the ultimate effect on cancer care.

Patient Perspectives on the Ethical Implementation of a Rapid Learning System for Oncology Care.

INTRODUCTION: A rapid learning system (RLS) of health care harnesses data generated from routine patient care to create a virtuous cycle of data collection and analysis for quality improvement and research. The success of such systems depends on understanding patient perspectives regarding the ethical issues that arise from the ongoing implementation of this transformative concept. METHODS: An interview guide was designed to evaluate patient perspectives to inform the ethical implementation of an oncology RLS. A purposively selected, diverse sample of 32 patients with cancer was recruited from two institutions to participate in semistructured, in-depth interviews for formal qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The extent to which respondents expressed discomfort with more permissive system features (less formal notification/consent, broader uses/users, inclusion of sensitive data) reflected their trust, which in turn seemed to vary by sociodemographic features. It was also influenced by their familiarity with technology and their attitudes and beliefs regarding privacy and the use of electronic medical records more generally. Distrust of insurers and the pharmaceutical industry led subjects to desire greater oversight and restriction of these potential users of the system. Subjects were most comfortable when doctors were the primary users, engaged patients directly in the notification and consent discussion, and oversaw the system. CONCLUSION: Those actively developing RLSs should recognize the critical importance of trust and the key role that doctors will need to play in order for such systems to be successful and to ensure that their implementation is ethically palatable to the patients whose data are being included.