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.

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.