Gender Dynamics in Substance Use and Treatment: A Women's Focused Approach.

Gender impacts substance use initiation, substance use disorder development, engagement with treatment, and harms related to drug and alcohol use. Using the biopsychosocial model of addiction, this review provides a broad summary of barriers and facilitators to addiction services among women. It also reviews substance use among pregnant and parenting women and approaches to care. Given the increasing rates of substance use among women, there is a need to implement and scale-up gender-responsive addiction programming and pursue advocacy at the policy level that addresses the root drivers of substance use inequities among women.

Marginal parent donors-Process and ethics.

BACKGROUND: Pre-emptive kidney transplantation for end-stage kidney disease in children has many advantages and may lead to the consideration of marginal parent donors. METHODS: Using the example of the transplant of a kidney with medullary sponge disease from a parent to the child, we review the ethical framework for working up such donors. RESULTS: The four principles of health ethics include autonomy (the right of the patient to retain control over his/her own body); beneficence (healthcare providers must do all they can do to benefit the patient in each situation); non-maleficence ("first do no harm"-providers must consider whether other people or society could be harmed by a decision made, even if it is made for the benefit of an individual patient) and justice (there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions). Highly motivated donors may derive significant psychological benefit from their donation and may thus be willing to incur more risk. The transplantation team and, ideally, an independent donor advocate team must make a judgment about the acceptability of the risk-benefit ratio for particular potential donors, who must also make their own assessment. The transplantation team and donor advocate team must be comfortable with the risk-benefit ratio before proceeding. CONCLUSIONS: An independent donor advocacy team that focuses on the donor needs is needed with sufficient multidisciplinary ethical, social, and psychological expertise. The decision to accept or reject the donor should be within the authority of the independent donor advocacy team and not the providers or the donor.

The Missing Chapter: The Education of Surgery and Anesthesiology Trainees as Civic Advocates.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted existing systemic inequities that adversely affect a variety of communities in the United States. These inequities have a direct and adverse impact on the healthcare of our patient population. While civic engagement has not been cultivated in surgical and anesthesia training, we maintain that it is inherent to the core role of the role of a physician. This is supported by moral imperative, professional responsibility, and a legal obligation. We propose that such civic engagement and social justice activism is a neglected, but necessary aspect of physician training. We propose the implementation of a civic advocacy education agenda across department, community and national platforms. Surgical and anesthesiology residency training needs to evolve to the meet these increasing demands.

[Choosing for euthanasia in advanced dementia; an analysis of the decisions by the Supreme Court]. / Euthanasie bij gevorderde dementie.

For many yearsthere has been confusion in the Netherlands about the question of whether doctors are entitled to end the life of incompetent patients with advanced dementia. The euthanasia control commission, the disciplinary courts and the penal court all answered this question differently after a doctor had performed euthanasia on a 74-year-old woman with advanced dementia and an advance directive made at an earlier stage. On 21 April 2020 the Supreme Court provided clarity, at least to a certain extent. This contribution presents an analysis of the decisions made by the Supreme Court and their implications for self-chosen death in patients with advanced dementia.

Medical advocacy in the face of Australian immigration practices: A study of medical professionals defending the health rights of detained refugees and asylum seekers.

While medical advocacy is mandated as a core professional commitment in a growing number of ethical codes and medical training programs, medical advocacy and social justice engagement are regularly subordinated to traditional clinical responsibilities. This study aims to provide insight into factors that motivate clinician engagement and perseverance with medical advocacy, so as to inform attempts by policymakers, leaders and educators to promote advocacy practices in medicine. Furthermore, this study aims to provide an analysis of the role of medical advocates in systems where patients' rights are perceived to be infringed and consider how we might best support and protect these medical advocates as a profession, by exploring the experiences and perspectives of Australian clinicians defending the health of detained asylum seekers. In this qualitative study thirty-two medical and health professionals advocating on asylum seeker health in immigration detention were interviewed. Transcripts were coded both inductively and deductively from interview question domains and thematically analysed. Findings suggested that respondents' motivations for advocacy stemmed from deeply intertwined professional and personal ethics. Overall, advocacy responses originated from the union of three integral stimuli: personal ethics, proximity and readiness. We conclude that each of these three integral factors must be addressed in any attempt to foster advocacy within the medical profession. In light of current global trends of increasingly protectionist immigration practices, promoting effective physician advocacy may become essential in ensuring patients' universal right to health.

Professionally responsible advocacy for women and children first during the COVID-19 pandemic: guidance from World Association of Perinatal Medicine and International Academy of Perinatal Medicine.

The goal of perinatal medicine is to provide professionally responsible clinical management of the conditions and diagnoses of pregnant, fetal, and neonatal patients. The New York Declaration of the International Academy of Perinatal Medicine, "Women and children First - or Last?" was directed toward the ethical challenges of perinatal medicine in middle-income and low-income countries. The global COVID-19 pandemic presents common ethical challenges in all countries, independent of their national wealth. In this paper the World Association of Perinatal Medicine provides ethics-based guidance for professionally responsible advocacy for women and children first during the COVID-19 pandemic. We first present an ethical framework that explains ethical reasoning, clinically relevant ethical principles and professional virtues, and decision making with pregnant patients and parents. We then apply this ethical framework to evidence-based treatment and its improvement, planned home birth, ring-fencing obstetric services, attendance of spouse or partner at birth, and the responsible management of organizational resources. Perinatal physicians should focus on the mission of perinatal medicine to put women and children first and frame-shifting when necessary to put the lives and health of the population of patients served by a hospital first.

An Organ for My Child: Public Appeals for Limited Resources.

The case of Jamie Fiske and subsequent public appeals for particular children by President Ronald Reagan represent classic cases in pediatric bioethics in which parents or others publicly appealed for a donor organ for a particular child. These raise questions about the appropriate boundaries for public appeals for a limited resource for a particular child and how the press and medical community should respond to such appeals. Public appeals by parents to advocate for their child to receive a limited resource above others promote rationing by morally irrelevant factors and shift the public focus from the national shortage of organs for transplant to the needs of a particular child. Yet these appeals are understandable and will likely continue. Recognizing this, we consider appropriate responses by the media, transplant community, hospitals, and individual clinicians.

Public Appeals Challenging Criteria for Pediatric Organ Transplantation.

In this article, I review the ethical issues that arise in the allocation of deceased-donor organs to children and young adults. By analyzing the public media cases of Sarah Murnaghan, Amelia Rivera, and Riley Hancey, I assess whether public appeals to challenge inclusion and exclusion criteria for organ transplantation are ethical and under which circumstances. The issues of pediatric allocation with limited evidence and candidacy affected by factors such as intellectual disability and marijuana use are specifically discussed. Finally, I suggest that ethical public advocacy can coexist with well-evidenced transplant allocation if and when certain conditions (morally defensible criteria, expert evidence, nonprioritization of the poster child, and greater advocacy for organ transplantation in general) are met.

Reflections on Charlie Gard and the Best Interests Standard From Both Sides of the Atlantic Ocean.

Charlie Gard (August 4, 2016, to July 28, 2017) was an infant in the United Kingdom who was diagnosed with an encephalopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by a mutation in the RRM2B gene. Charlie's parents raised £1.3 million (∼$1.6 million US) on a crowdfunding platform to travel to New York to pursue experimental nucleoside bypass treatment, which was being used to treat a myopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by mutations in a different gene (TK2). The case made international headlines about what was in Charlie's best interest. In the medical ethics community, it raised the question of whether best interest serves as a guidance principle (a principle that provides substantive directions as to how decisions are to be made), an intervention principle (a principle specifying the conditions under which third parties are to intervene), both guidance and intervention, or neither. I show that the United Kingdom uses best interest as both guidance and intervention, and the United States uses best interest for neither. This explains why the decision to withdraw the ventilator without attempting nucleoside bypass treatment was the correct decision in the United Kingdom and why the opposite conclusion would have been reached in the United States.

Ethical challenges in nephrology: a call for action.

The American Society of Nephrology, the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association and the International Society of Nephrology Joint Working Group on Ethical Issues in Nephrology have identified ten broad areas of ethical concern as priority challenges that require collaborative action. Here, we describe these challenges - equity in access to kidney failure care, avoiding futile dialysis, reducing dialysis costs, shared decision-making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in kidney disease prevention and care, the ethical implications of genetic kidney diseases, responsible advocacy for kidney health and management of conflicts of interest - with the aim of highlighting the need for ethical analysis of specific issues, as well as for the development of tools and training to support clinicians who treat patients with kidney disease in practising ethically and contributing to ethical policy-making.

Five years of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient organisations in Sweden: Cross-sectional study of companies, patient organisations and drugs.

BACKGROUND: Many patient organisations collaborate with drug companies, resulting in concerns about commercial agendas influencing patient advocacy. We contribute to an international body of knowledge on patient organisation-industry relations by considering payments reported in the industry's centralised 'collaboration database' in Sweden. We also investigate possible commercial motives behind the funding by assessing its association with drug commercialisation. METHODS: Our primary data source were 1,337 payment reports from 2014-2018. After extraction and coding, we analysed the data descriptively, calculating the number, value and distribution of payments for various units of analysis, e.g. individual companies, diseases and payment goals. The association between drug commercialisation and patient organisation funding was assessed by, first, the concordance between leading companies marketing drugs in specific diseases and their funding of corresponding patient organisations and, second, the correlation between new drugs in broader condition areas and payments to corresponding patient organisations. RESULTS: 46 companies reported paying €6,449.224 (median €2,411; IQR €1,024-4,569) to 77 patient organisations, but ten companies provided 67% of the funding. Small payments dominated, many of which covered costs of events organised by patient organisations. An association existed between drug commercialisation and industry funding. Companies supported patient organisations in diseases linked to their drug portfolios, with the top 3 condition areas in terms of funding-cancer; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders; and infectious and parasitic disorders-accounting for 63% of new drugs and 56% of the funding. CONCLUSION: This study reveals close and widespread ties between patient organisations and drug companies. A relatively few number of companies dominated the funding landscape by supporting patient organisations in disease areas linked to their drug portfolios. This commercially motivated funding may contribute to inequalities in resource and influence between patient organisations. The association between drug commercialisation and industry funding is also worrying because of the therapeutic uncertainty of many new drugs. Our analysis benefited from the existence of a centralised database of payments-which should be adopted by other countries too-but databases should be downloadable in an analysable format to permit efficient and independent analysis.

Ethical Advocacy Across the Autism Spectrum: Beyond Partial Representation.

Recent debates within the autism advocacy community have raised difficult questions about who can credibly act as a representative of a particular population and what responsibilities that role entails. We attempt to answer these questions by defending a set of evaluative criteria that can be used to assess the legitimacy of advocacy organizations and other nonelectoral representatives. With these criteria in hand, we identify a form of misrepresentation common but not unique to autism advocacy, which we refer to as partial representation. Partial representation occurs when an actor claims to represent a particular group of people but appropriately engages with only a subset of that group. After highlighting symbolic and substantive harms associated with partial representation, we propose several strategies for overcoming it.