Neonatal Male Circumcision: Clearly Beneficial for Public Health or an Ethical Dilemma? A Systematic Review.

Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed PRISMA-compliant keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LexisNexis, and other databases and identified 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the bibliographies of these articles, we identified 58 more relevant articles and 28 internet items. We found high-quality evidence that NMC is a low-risk procedure that provides immediate and lifetime medical and health benefits and only rarely leads to later adverse effects on sexual function or pleasure. Given this evidence, we conclude that discouraging or denying NMC is unethical from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the right to health. Further, case law supports the legality of NMC. We found, conversely, that the ethical arguments against NMC rely on distortions of the medical evidence. Thus, NMC, by experienced operators using available safety precautions, appears to be both legal and ethical. Consistent with this conclusion, all of the evidence-based pediatric policies that we reviewed describe NMC as low-risk and beneficial to public health. We calculated that a reduction in NMC in the United States from 80% to 10% would substantially increase the cases of adverse medical conditions. The present findings thus support the evidence-based NMC policy statements and are inconsistent with the non-evidence-based policies that discourage NMC. On balance, the arguments and evidence reviewed here indicate that NMC is a medically beneficial and ethical public health intervention early in life because it reduces suffering, deaths, cases, and costs of treating adverse medical conditions throughout the lifetimes of circumcised individuals.

Ethics of Transitioning from Curative Care to Palliative Care: Potential Conflicts of Interest Using the Example of Neurosurgery.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical conditions are often incurable and lead to disability, severe physical symptoms, and distress for patients and families. Neurosurgeons may be responsible for transitioning management from curative to palliative. We sought to analyze the ethics of transitioning care from curative to palliative in patients in one's own specialty. METHODS: This was a case-based narrative review. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched with no restrictions on date. Studies relevant to the topic were included. RESULTS: After providing an introductory case, we defined the curative and palliative neurosurgical treatment paradigms, clarified the concept of transition of care from curative to palliative, and contrasted generalist and specialist palliative care. Next, we provided an overview of core ethical principles. We then described key considerations involved in transitioning patients from curative to palliative care in one's own specialty, namely, knowledge, communication, uncertainty, and futility. Finally, we provided an analysis of the introductory case, highlighting the conflict of interest inherent in the transition. CONCLUSIONS: It is acceptable for neurosurgeons and other specialists with adequate palliative care training to manage the transition to palliative care in most cases, preferably as part of multidisciplinary care teams. While we discuss the example of neurosurgery, this analysis applies to other specialties where care transitions from curative to palliative intent occur. Across specialties, patient preferences and values are foundational in the timing and specifics of this transition.

Informed consent in neurosurgery: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Informed consent has served as a main principle of medical ethics and laws in the United States. The 1986 American Association of Neurological Surgeons Code of Ethics implied medicolegal liability for the failure to obtain informed consent without providing practical guidance regarding the application of informed consent to individual patient encounters in a medicolegal environment. Here, the authors aimed to identify baseline patient recall after discussions with neurosurgeons and their capacity to provide informed consent, describe the effects of interventions to improve patient comprehension, and elucidate the role of informed consent in malpractice litigation in neurosurgery. Their findings may guide neurosurgeons in discussions to properly inform patients and reduce the risk of litigation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to explore informed consent within neurosurgery and its application to medicolegal liability using the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Titles and abstracts from articles identified in the search were read and selected for full-text review. Studies meeting prespecified inclusion criteria were reviewed in full and analyzed for study design, aim, population, interventions, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1428 resultant articles, 21 were included in the review. Baseline patient recall was low, particularly for risks and alternatives of treatments, and even decreased over time. Cognitive impairment was noted as a factor limiting the ability to provide informed consent. Interventions incorporating a combination of modalities in informed consent discussions, a specialized consent form with points for neurosurgeons to check off upon discussion, interactive websites, question prompt lists, and illustrations were found to be effective in improving patient knowledge. Lack of informed consent was a common factor for malpractice litigation. Spine surgery was particularly prone to costly lawsuits. Payments were generally greater for plaintiff verdicts than for settlements. CONCLUSIONS: The application of informed consent to patient encounters is an important facet of clinical practice. Neurosurgeons have a duty to provide patients with all pertinent information to allow them to make decisions about their care. The authors examined baseline patient comprehension and capacity, interventions to improve informed consent, and malpractice litigation; it appears that determining the proper capacity to provide informed consent and considering informed consent as a process that depends on the setting are important. There is room to improve the informed consent process centered on baseline patient health literacy and understanding as well as clear communication using multiple modalities.