"Reflection and soul searching": Negotiating nursing identity at the fault lines of palliative care and medical assistance in dying.

Authorities within the field of palliative care frequently espouse that assisted death is - and must remain - separate from palliative care. This fault line, between palliative care and assisted death, has important implications for how we enact end-of-life care, particularly in jurisdictions where assisted death is legal. And yet little is known about how direct-care clinicians providing palliative care navigate this demarcation in everyday practice. This qualitative study reports on semi-structured interviews with 22 palliative care nurses from across Canada, where assisted death was legalized in 2016. Although a minority of participants did express categorical opinions around the (non) legitimacy of assisted death as an ethical end-of-life care option, most engaged in an ongoing and sometimes painful process of questioning and self-examination. Their ethical reflections were more nuanced than simply dismissing MAiD as incompatible with palliative care philosophy; yet this idea of incompatibility weighed heavily as they reasoned through their experiences and questioned their own perspectives. Nurses described grappling with the finality of assisted death, which contradicts their belief in the telos of palliative care; when adequately resourced, palliative care should be available to support people to live well before death. At the same time, commitment to important palliative care values such as the non-abandonment of dying people and respecting peoples' individual end-of-life choices reveal the possibility of overlap between the ethos of assisted death and that of palliative care nursing. Drawing on scholarship in feminist ethics, our study sheds light on the moral identity work that assisted dying catalyzes amongst palliative care nurses. We highlight what is at stake for them as they navigate a delicate tension in responding ethically to patients whose suffering motivates an interest in assisted death, from within a wider professional collective that upholds a master narrative about the incompatibility of assisted death and palliative care.

Bioidentical hormones, menopausal women, and the lure of the "natural" in U.S. anti-aging medicine.

In 2002, the Women's Health Initiative, a large-scale study of the safety of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for women conducted in the United States, released results suggesting that use of postmenopausal HRT increased women's risks of stroke and breast cancer. In the years that followed, as rates of HRT prescription fell, another hormonal therapy rose in its wake: bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT). Anti-aging clinicians, the primary prescribers of BHRT, tout it as a safe and effective alternative to treat menopausal symptoms and, moreover, as a preventative therapy for age-related diseases and ailments. Through in-depth interviews with 31 U.S.-based anti-aging clinicians and 25 female anti-aging patients, we analyze attitudes towards BHRT. We illustrate how these attitudes reveal broader contemporary values, discourses, and discomforts with menopause, aging, and biomedicine. The attraction to and promise of BHRT is rooted in the idea that it is a "natural" therapy. BHRT is given both biomedical and embodied legitimacy by clinicians and patients because of its purported ability to become part of the body's "natural" processes. The normative assumption that "natural" is inherently "good" not only places BHRT beyond reproach, but transforms its use into a health benefit. The clinical approach of anti-aging providers also plays a role by validating patients' embodied experiences and offering a "holistic" solution to their symptoms, which anti-aging patients see as a striking contrast to their experiences with conventional biomedical health care. The perceived virtues of BHRT shed light on the rhetoric of anti-aging medicine and a deeply complicated relationship between conventional biomedicine, hormonal technologies, and women's bodies.

Integrating genomics into clinical oncology: ethical and social challenges from proponents of personalized medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The use of molecular tools to individualize health care, predict appropriate therapies, and prevent adverse health outcomes has gained significant traction in the field of oncology under the banner of "personalized medicine" (PM). Enthusiasm for PM in oncology has been fueled by success stories of targeted treatments for a variety of cancers based on their molecular profiles. Though these are clear indications of optimism for PM, little is known about the ethical and social implications of personalized approaches in clinical oncology. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess how a range of stakeholders engaged in promoting, monitoring, and providing PM understand the challenges of integrating genomic testing and targeted therapies into clinical oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study involved the analysis of in-depth interviews with 117 stakeholders whose experiences and perspectives on PM span a wide variety of institutional and professional settings. RESULTS: Despite their considerable enthusiasm for this shift, promoters, monitors, and providers of PM identified 4 domains that provoke heightened ethical and social concerns: (1) informed consent for cancer genomic testing, (2) privacy, confidentiality, and disclosure of genomic test results, (3) access to genomic testing and targeted therapies in oncology, and (4) the costs of scaling up pharmacogenomic testing and targeted cancer therapies. CONCLUSIONS: These specific concerns are not unique to oncology, or even genomics. However, those most invested in the success of PM view oncologists' responses to these challenges as precedent setting because oncology is farther along the path of clinical integration of genomic technologies than other fields of medicine. This study illustrates that the rapid emergence of PM approaches in clinical oncology provides a crucial lens for identifying and managing potential frictions and pitfalls that emerge as health care paradigms shift in these directions.