If it ain't broke don't fix it? Ethics of splinting deformed newborn ears.

Neonatal ear splinting is a proven and safe method to mold deformed ears into a more common shape. Based on our earlier studies, splinting is recommended only before the age of six weeks and preferably within the first week after birth. This can be done by initiating a system in which this intervention is actively proposed to parents. In this paper, we ethically evaluate such a system. By molding perfectly healthy newborn ears, we reach the boundary between treatment and enhancement. A key question is, therefore, whether we could classify neonatal ear splinting as a therapy. On the level of the individual, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, but on the level of society, it is more complicated. Making ear deformities a part of official national screening programs fails to meet WHO criteria. Moreover, by systematically offering ear molding, professionals may be promoting guilt or fear of missing the opportunity. Additionally, it could affect societal attitudes toward cosmetic deformities. However, if we argue that on the individual level infants may benefit from ear splinting, then active detection of ear deformities allows parents to choose in a timely way from the full range of options, including splinting and a wait-and-see approach. We are inclined to optimally inform parents without setting up a full-blown public health program. The extent to which it is possible to timely offer splints to parents of newborns depends on the infrastructure of health care systems. The key will be for everyone involved, public or commercial, to responsibly educate and facilitate.

Ethics in musculoskeletal regenerative medicine; guidance in choosing the appropriate comparator in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative Medicine (RM) techniques aimed at the musculoskeletal system are increasingly translated to clinical trials and patient care. This revolutionary era in science raises novel ethical challenges. One of these challenges concerns the appropriate choice of the comparator in (randomized controlled) trials, including the ethically contentious use of sham procedures. To date, only general guidelines regarding the choice of the comparator exist. OBJECTIVE: To provide specific guidelines for clinical trial comparator choice in musculoskeletal RM. METHODS: In this manuscript, we discuss the ethics of comparator selection in RM trials. First, we make a classification of RM interventions according to different health states from disease prevention, return to normal health, postponing RM treatment, supplementing RM treatment, substituting RM treatment, improving RM outcome, and slowing progression. Subsequently, per objective, the accompanying ethical points to consider are evaluated with support from the available literature. RESULTS: a sham procedure is demonstrated to be an ethically acceptable comparator in RM trials with certain objectives, but less appropriate for musculoskeletal RM interventions that aim at preventing disease or substituting a surgical treatment. The latter may be compared to 'standard of care'. CONCLUSION: From a scientific perspective, choosing the correct comparator based on ethical guidelines is a step forward in the success of musculoskeletal RM.

Managing unsolicited findings in genomics: A qualitative interview study with cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly being employed in the context of personalized cancer treatment. Anticipating unsolicited findings that may arise during a NGS procedure is a key consideration; however, little is known about cancer patients' intentions, needs, and preferences concerning the return of unsolicited findings. METHODS: A qualitative design using individual semi-structured interviews with 24 cancer patients was utilized to explore patients' decisions on whether to receive unsolicited findings from NGS. These interviews were subsequently analyzed using the constant comparative method to develop codes and themes. RESULTS: We identified 4 interrelated themes that emerged in the context of the return of unsolicited findings. First, we describe how cancer patients expressed a strong need to control their lives. Second, we show the importance of family dynamics. Third, the NGS procedure regarding unsolicited findings is perceived as cognitively complex, and fourth, the procedure is also considered emotionally complex. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of what cancer patients consider important and what may motivate and influence them when making decisions on the disclosure of unsolicited findings following NGS. We show how Joel Feinberg's classification of autonomy may help clinicians to better understand cancer patients' desire for autonomous decision making while also acknowledging the emotional and cognitive difficulties regarding the disclosure of unsolicited findings. These insights could be helpful for clinicians to guide patients through this complex process.

Innovation in neurosurgery: less than IDEAL? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical innovation is different from the introduction of novel pharmaceuticals. To help address this, in 2009 the IDEAL Collaboration (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term follow-up) introduced the five-stage framework for surgical innovation. To evaluate the framework feasibility for novel neurosurgical procedure introduction, two innovative surgical procedures were examined: the endoscopic endonasal approach for skull base meningiomas (EEMS) and the WovenEndobridge (WEB device) for endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms. METHODS: The published literature on EEMS and WEB devices was systematically reviewed. Identified studies were classified according to the IDEAL framework stage. Next, studies were evaluated for possible categorization according to the IDEAL framework. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-six papers describing EEMS were identified of which 26 papers were included. No prospective studies were identified, and no studies reported on ethical approval or patient informed consent for the innovative procedure. Therefore, no clinical studies could be categorized according to the IDEAL Framework. For WEB devices, 6229 articles were screened of which 21 were included. In contrast to EEMS, two studies were categorized as 2a and two as 2b. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review demonstrate that both EEMS and WEB devices were not introduced according to the (later developed in the case of EEMS) IDEAL framework. Elements of the framework such as informed consent, ethical approval, and rigorous outcomes reporting are important and could serve to improve the quality of neurosurgical research. Alternative study designs and the use of big data could be useful modifications of the IDEAL framework for innovation in neurosurgery.