Moral justification for the use of 'add-ons' in assisted reproductive technology: experts' views and experiences.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What factors do assisted reproductive terchnology (ART) providers take into account when they make decisions about offering 'add-ons'? DESIGN: A qualitative analysis of interviews with 31 ART professionals, focusing on their views and experiences in relation to add-ons, including the factors that are considered when doctors make decisions about their use. RESULTS: The participants reported that a range of considerations are taken into account when it comes to justifying the use of a particular add-on in a given circumstance, including the likelihood of benefit and harm, patients' perceived psychological needs and preferences, and organizational expectations. Importantly, patient preferences, psychological factors and low risk of harm appear to be stronger motivations than increasing the likelihood of a live birth or the desire to innovate. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that it cannot be taken for granted that add-ons and innovation are closely linked. One possible response to this would be regulatory reform; for example, only allowing 'unproven' add-ons to be used in the context of formal scientific evaluation. Alternatively, it could be made clear that add-ons that are not undergoing formal evaluation have more in common with other therapies lacking a clear evidence base, such as complementary and alternative medicines, than with conventional medical practice. Practices in relation to add-ons may also require a focus on the responsibilities of corporations, and the standards applying to purveyors of consumer goods and services.

Medicine in the marketplace: clinician and patient views on commercial influences on assisted reproductive technology.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the views and experiences of patient and expert stakeholders on the positive and negative impacts of commercial influences on the provision of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, and what are their suggestions for governance reforms? DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 ART industry experts from across Australia and New Zealand and 25 patients undergoing ART from metropolitan and regional Australia, between September 2020 and September 2021. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Expert and patient participants considered that commercial forces influence the provision of ART in a number of positive ways - increasing sustainability, ensuring consistency in standards and providing patients with greater choice. Participants also considered commercial forces to have a number of negative impacts, including increased costs to government and patients; the excessive use of interventions that lack sufficient evidence to be considered part of standard care; inadequately informed consent (particularly with regard to financial information); and threats to patient-provider relationships and patient-centred care. Participants varied in whether they believed that professional self-regulation is sufficient. While recognizing the benefits of commercial investment in healthcare, many considered that regulatory reforms, as well as organizational cultural initiatives, are needed as means to ensure the primacy of patient well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The views expressed in this study should be systematically and critically examined to derive insights into how best to govern ART. These insights may also inform the design and delivery of other types of healthcare that are provided in the private sector.

What moral weight should patient-led demand have in clinical decisions about assisted reproductive technologies?

Evidence suggests that one reason doctors provide certain interventions in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) is because of patient demand. This is particularly the case when it comes to unproven interventions such as 'add-ons' to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, or providing IVF cycles that are highly unlikely to succeed. Doctors tend to accede to demands for such interventions because patients are willing to do and pay 'whatever it takes' to have a baby. However, there is uncertainty as to what moral weight should be placed on patient-led demands in ART, including whether it is acceptable for such demands to be invoked as a justification for intervention. We address this issue in this paper. We start by elucidating what we mean by 'patient-led demand' and synthesise some of the evidence for this phenomenon. We then argue that a doctor's professional role morality (PRM) yields special responsibilities, particularly in commercialised healthcare settings such as ART, because of the nature of professions as social institutions that are distinct from markets. We argue on this basis that, while there may be reasons (consistent with PRM) for doctors to accede to patient demand, this is not always the case. There is often a gap in justification between acceding to patient-led demands and providing contested interventions, particularly in commercial settings. As a result, acceding to demand in such settings needs a strong justification to be consistent with PRM.

Therapeutic misunderstandings in modern research.

Clinical trials play a crucial role in generating evidence about healthcare interventions and improving outcomes for current and future patients. For individual trial participants, however, there are inevitably trade-offs involved in clinical trial participation, given that trials have traditionally been designed to benefit future patient populations rather than to offer personalised care. Failure to understand the distinction between research and clinical care and the likelihood of benefit from participation in clinical trials has been termed the 'therapeutic misconception'. The evolution of the clinical trials landscape, including greater integration of clinical trials into healthcare and development of novel trial methodologies, may reinforce the significance of the therapeutic misconception and other forms of misunderstanding while at the same time (paradoxically) challenging its salience. Using cancer clinical trials as an exemplar, we describe how methodological changes in early- and late-phase clinical trial designs, as well as changes in the design and delivery of healthcare, impact upon the therapeutic misconception. We suggest that this provides an impetus to re-examine the ethics of clinical research, particularly in relation to trial access, participant selection, communication and consent, and role delineation.

Money matters: a critique of 'informed financial consent'.

In recent years, concerns about the financial burdens of health care and growing recognition of the relevance of cost to decision making and patient experience have increasingly focused attention on financial 'transparency' and disclosure of costs to patients. In some jurisdictions, there have been calls not only for timely disclosure of costs information, but also for 'informed financial consent'. However, simply putting the 'financial' into 'informed consent' and invoking an informed consent standard for cost information encounters several ethical, legal, and practical difficulties. This article will examine the viability and desirability of 'informed financial consent', and whether it is possible to derive ideas from traditional informed consent that may improve decision making and the patient experience. We argue that, while there are important legal, ethical, and practical challenges to consider, some of the principles of informed consent to treatment can usefully guide financial communication. We also argue that, while medical practitioners (and their delegates) have an important role to play in bridging the gap between disclosure and enabling informed (financial) decision making, this must be part of a multi-faceted approach to financial communication that acknowledges the influence of non-clinical providers and other structural forces on discharging such obligations.

When research becomes practice: the concept of the therapeutic misconception and challenges to consent in clinical trials.

Many factors influence patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials. For many, the primary motivation is the possibility that they might derive some benefit from participation. This is particularly true for patients with limited treatment options, such as patients with advanced cancer. While this is not surprising, it is potentially problematic if patients fail to recognise the distinction between research and clinical care (a phenomenon known as the 'therapeutic misconception'). This is becoming increasingly problematic as clinical trial designs become more complex, as clinical trials become more embedded in routine clinical care, and as trials are increasingly used by patients and clinicians to access new diagnostic platforms and therapies. We outline some of these recent trends, focusing on the cancer clinical trials landscape as this provides a good case study of the phenomenon. We conclude by making preliminary suggestions that changes to the consent process, perhaps using 'dynamic consent' platforms, might help to mitigate the therapeutic misconception and note the need for further research to guide strategies for improving communication and decision-making.

Can old drugs learn new tricks? Achieving registration and public subsidy listing for off-patent medicines with novel therapeutic applications.

With the increasing costs of drug development, repurposing of low-cost medicines for new indications has never been more important. However, there are multiple barriers to repurposing, particularly for off-patent medicines, and limited incentives for the pharmaceutical industry to sponsor registration and public subsidy listing. Here, we explore these barriers and their consequences and provide examples of successful repurposing strategies.

How therapeutic advances have transformed the medical landscape: a primer for clinicians.

Novel medicines are entering the market rapidly and are increasingly being used alone or in combination to treat illnesses of every sort. While transforming the lives of many patients, these new therapies have also forced us to reconsider the way we evaluate, use and fund medicines. This article offers a primer to help practitioners understand how the therapeutic landscape is changing and how this might impact the evidence generation, access to interventions, patient experience and quality of care.

The silent world of assisted reproduction: A qualitative account of communication between doctors and patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation in Australia.

CONTEXT: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is now a common assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedure globally, with 8 million children alive today having been conceived utilising IVF. For many patients, IVF is a difficult experience with many discontinuing treatment because of emotional, relationship and financial stress, or intolerable physical side effects of hormone treatments. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A qualitative study, in which 31 professionals and 25 patients from the ART sector in Australia were interviewed. The interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our data indicates there are 'silences' within the therapeutic relationship of IVF, which may limit the capacity for patients to prepare emotionally, financially, or medically for the procedure, and may contribute to psychological distress and dissatisfaction with care. These 'silences' include what the patient 'is not told' by their clinician or 'does not hear' and what the patient feels they 'cannot say'. DISCUSSION: Drawing upon the work of Jay Katz, Charis Thompson, and Miles Little on 'silences' and performance in clinical practice, we argue that although IVF is a complex and multifaceted procedure that is often conducted in a commercial setting, the clinical and therapeutic relationship between doctor and patient remains pivotal to the experiences of patients. The 'silences' within this relationship may impact negatively on decision-making, and on the delivery and experience of care. CONCLUSIONS: Careful attention to the realities of IVF treatment in the clinic room (and awareness of the performances that hide them) should allow for more present and compassionate care. Such care may leave patients more satisfied with their experience and their choices, regardless of treatment outcomes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This article draws on interviews with patients who had undergone or were currently undergoing IVF, as well as a range of representatives from the ART community (including reproductive medicine specialists, general practitioners, fertility nurses, counsellors, administrators in ART businesses and embryologists).

Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings.

AIMS: Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists and other generalist specialists in Boston (USA) and Australia. Coding and analysis were performed inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas: physicians' awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming and sharing of information with patients. RESULTS: Uncertainty, trust and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the "clinical grapevine" for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients' health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator's post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs. CONCLUSION: Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance and accessibility, and address physicians' needs in communicating risk to patients.

A New Priority Pathway for Biologicals in Australia: Contextualising and Evaluating the Proposed Reforms.

This section examines recent reforms to the regulatory framework for biologicals contained in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) in the context of the "New Frontier" of reform envisioned in a report completed by the Commonwealth Government in 2021. It compares Australia's proposed reform of the approval processes for biologicals to similar reforms that have been made over the last three decades in the United States and the European Union. It places the Australian reforms in the context of the commercialisation of regenerative medicine and identifies several potential shortcomings of the proposed reforms and reports on the current lack of data on the processes of expedited approvals in Australia more generally.

Beyond platitudes: a qualitative study of Australian Aboriginal people's perspectives on biobanking.

BACKGROUND: Biobanks are vital resources for genetics and genomics, and it is broadly recognised that for maximal benefit it is essential that they include samples and data from diverse ancestral groups. The inclusion of First Nations people, in particular, is important to prevent biobanking research from exacerbating existing health inequities, and to ensure that these communities share in the benefits arising from research. AIMS: To explore the perspectives of Australian Aboriginal people whose tissue - or that of their family members - has been stored in the biobank of the National Centre for Indigenous Genomics (NCIG). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 42 Aboriginal people from the Titjikala, Galiwinku, Tiwi Islands, Yarrabah, Fitzroy Crossing, Derby, One Arm Point and Mulan communities, as well as a formal discussion with A. Hermes, an Indigenous Community Engagement Coordinator at the NCIG who had conducted the interviews. The interviews and the structured discussion were double coded using a procedure informed by Charmaz's outline of grounded theory analysis and Morse's outline of the cognitive basis of qualitative research. RESULTS: In this article, we report on A. Hermes' interviews with members from the above Aboriginal communities, as well as on her personal views, experiences, and interpretations of the interviews she conducted with other community members. We found that participation in the NCIG biobank raised issues around broken trust, grief and loss, but also - somewhat unexpectedly - was perceived as a source of empowerment, hope and reconnection. CONCLUSIONS: This research reminds us (again) of the need to engage deeply with communities in order to respond appropriately with respect for their cultural values and norms, and to develop culturally relevant policies and processes that enhance the benefits of biobank participation and minimise potential harms.

Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research.

Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He's gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this paper, we briefly review the now well-established consequentialist and deontological arguments for and against the use of unethical research. We argue that, while there are potentially compelling justifications for use under some circumstances, these justifications fail when unethical practices are ongoing-as in the case of research involving transplantations in which organs have been procured unethically from executed prisoners. Use of such research displays a lack of respect and concern for the victims and undermines efforts to deter unethical practices. Such use also creates moral taint and renders those who use the research complicit in continuing harm. In Part 2, we distinguish three dimensions of 'non-use' of unethical research: non-use of published unethical research, non-publication, and retraction and argue that all three types of non-use should be upheld in the case of Chinese transplant research. Publishers have responsibilities to not publish contemporary unethical biomedical research, and where this has occurred, to retract publications. Failure to retract the papers implicitly condones the research, while uptake of the research through citations rewards researchers and ongoing circulation of the data in the literature facilitates subsequent use by researchers, policymakers and clinicians.

Are my religious beliefs anyone's business? A framework for declarations in health and biomedicine.

Conflicts of interests (COI) are typically divided into those that are financial and those that are not. While there is general agreement that financial COIs have a significant impact on decisions and need to be declared and managed, the status of non-financial COIs continues to be disputed. In a recent BMJ feature article it was proposed that religious beliefs should be routinely declared as an interest. The article generated over 41 responses from the medical community and health researchers, which put forward diverse and opposing views. In this paper, we analyse the discourse to shed further light on the reasons put forward for and against declaring religious beliefs. We argue for a middle path in which only material beliefs should be declared, and then only when there are no extenuating circumstances. To this end, we present a framework to help evaluate the materiality of interests that can be used for both financial and non-financial interests.

Transvaginal mesh, gender and the ethics of clinical innovation.

On 10 October 2018, Australian Health Minister Greg Hunt issued a national apology to the Australian women who experienced 'horrific outcomes' following surgery using transvaginal mesh-acknowledging the 'historic agony and pain that has come from mesh implantation'. This apology followed many decades of 'innovative' use of transvaginal mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. We use the case of transvaginal mesh to explore how clinical innovation may not only harm patients, but also entrench vulnerability and exacerbate existing inequities-in this case, those relating to gender.

Promoting ethics across the healthcare sector: what can codes achieve?

Over the course of the twentieth century, numerous national and international ethics 'codes' have been developed. While such codes serve important substantive and symbolic functions, they can also pose challenges. In this article, we discuss these challenges, noting that they fall into four main categories relating to conceptual tensions, power imbalances, organisational barriers, and threats of exploitation. We illustrate these challenges using examples provided from the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. We emphasise the importance of accountability in the development and maintenance of national and international codes and argue that, despite all their challenges, codes provide an important common language among otherwise disparate and sometimes adversarial groups, and provide visible and explicit sets of standards that may be invoked by community members to criticise and hold powerful bodies to account. This is particularly important for practitioners and researchers who belong to organisations that are signatories to codes, who can use these codes to both guide and justify ethical behaviour in the face of competing organisational, professional and political imperatives.

A major new alliance in Australian healthcare: the Australian consensus framework for ethical collaboration in the healthcare sector.

The 'Australian Consensus Framework for Ethical Collaboration in the Healthcare Sector' (ACF) is an Australian initiative aimed at countering dysfunction and growing mistrust in the health sector through the development of a cross-sectoral consensus framework. The development of this framework arose from Australia's involvement in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperative (APEC) and has since become the largest of its kind internationally, with over 70 signatories representing professional bodies, industry organisations, hospital and health services associations, regulators and patient and advocacy groups. In this article, we describe and critique the framework and outline its implementation.

Public trust and global biobank networks.

BACKGROUND: Biobanks provide an important foundation for genomic and personalised medicine. In order to enhance their scientific power and scope, they are increasingly becoming part of national or international networks. Public trust is essential in fostering public engagement, encouraging donation to, and facilitating public funding for biobanks. Globalisation and networking of biobanking may challenge this trust. METHODS: We report the results of an Australian study examining public attitudes to the networking and globalisation of biobanks. The study used quantitative and qualitative methods in conjunction with bioethical analysis in order to determine factors that may contribute to, and threaten, trust. RESULTS: Our results indicate a generally high level of trust in biobanks and in medical research more broadly. Key factors that can reduce perceived trustworthiness of biobanks are commercialisation and involvement in global networking. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that robust ethical oversight and governance standards can both promote trust in global biobanking and ensure that this trust is warranted.

Unconventional Practice, "Innovative" Interventions and the National Law.

This column explores a recent health profession disciplinary case which throws light on the problems of unconventional interventions by medical practitioners under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld). The case involved "innovative" practices which were later found to have been scientifically unsupported, dangerous to patients and grounds for cancelling the health practitioner's registration. This column looks at common features of these kinds of cases in Australia and then examines recent attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to draft policy guidance around the use of unconventional practice in medicine. This column concludes with a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the proposed policy.

Conflicts of interest: new thinking, new processes.

Although the concept of 'conflict of interest' (COI) arises in many contexts in healthcare, it is often poorly understood, and commonly accepted, definitions are often circular, self-contradictory and unable to provide procedural guidance. To overcome such confusion and imprecision, we offer a reformulation of COI that carefully defines interests, clarifies their scope and articulates a simple, non-punitive approach to managing them. We define an 'interest' as 'a commitment, goal, obligation or duty related to a particular social role or practice'. We show how in a particular setting multiple interests can be at play, which can be either financial or non-financial, with the latter often being the most potent drivers of behaviour. We define a 'conflict of interest' as the condition that arises when two coexisting interests directly conflict with each other: that is, when they are likely to compel contrary and incompatible outcomes. COI therefore reflect objective states of affairs rather than internal mental states; they do not imply moral error; and they are identified through public rather than private processes involving ethical dialogues among relevant stakeholders. Once a COI has been identified, responses must be determined based on the seriousness of the conflict and the conditions that generated it. Such responses may be minimal or they may require a formal disengagement from one of the conflicting interests. The framework described, reflects the rich diversity of interests in modern societies, is universally applicable and provides simple, readily applicable guidelines for the identification and management of conflicts arising between them.