Medicare and Advance Planning: The Importance of Context.

In January 2016, a long-delayed Medicare change took effect. The Medicare program will now reimburse doctors for time they spend talking with patients about end-of-life care. This is the move that Sarah Palin and other Affordable Care Act critics said would authorize government "death panels" to decide whether older Americans should live or die. Today virtually no one buys into Palin's death panel rhetoric. But many people do think the Medicare change is a big deal. Representative Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon who sponsored the original ACA reimbursement proposal, lauded the Medicare provision as "a turning point in end-of-life care." Others are not so sure about that. After all, laws promoting advance care planning have existed for decades. The federal Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 and the many court decisions and state laws supporting advance care planning have had relatively little impact. Similarly, legal recognition of physician orders for life-sustaining treatment as advance planning instruments have not produced the improvements that were predicted. And from a broad perspective, advance care planning is a small piece of the puzzle. The effort to improve end-of-life care must take into account the limitations of advance decision-making, as well as the overriding importance of the general standard of care for terminally ill patients.

Edmund Pellegrino and the art of civilized dialectics.

I had the good fortune to work with Edmund Pellegrino from 2005 until 2009, while he was chairman and I was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. We came from different disciplines--medicine and law--and from different generations. Until that point, our paths had rarely crossed. I am so glad that I finally did have an opportunity to get to know him. Pellegrino contributed a great deal to the council during his time as chairman. I cannot begin to cover all that he brought to the council during his four years of leadership. In this essay, I describe how his views of both public bioethics and clinical ethics shaped his council participation.

Recommendations for nanomedicine human subjects research oversight: an evolutionary approach for an emerging field.

The nanomedicine field is fast evolving toward complex, "active," and interactive formulations. Like many emerging technologies, nanomedicine raises questions of how human subjects research (HSR) should be conducted and the adequacy of current oversight, as well as how to integrate concerns over occupational, bystander, and environmental exposures. The history of oversight for HSR investigating emerging technologies is a patchwork quilt without systematic justification of when ordinary oversight for HSR is enough versus when added oversight is warranted. Nanomedicine HSR provides an occasion to think systematically about appropriate oversight, especially early in the evolution of a technology, when hazard and risk information may remain incomplete. This paper presents the consensus recommendations of a multidisciplinary, NIH-funded project group, to ensure a science-based and ethically informed approach to HSR issues in nanomedicine, and to integrate HSR analysis with analysis of occupational, bystander, and environmental concerns. We recommend creating two bodies, an interagency Human Subjects Research in Nanomedicine (HSR/N) Working Group and a Secretary's Advisory Committee on Nanomedicine (SAC/N). HSR/N and SAC/N should perform 3 primary functions: (1) analysis of the attributes and subsets of nanomedicine interventions that raise HSR challenges and current gaps in oversight; (2) providing advice to relevant agencies and institutional bodies on the HSR issues, as well as federal and federal-institutional coordination; and (3) gathering and analyzing information on HSR issues as they emerge in nanomedicine. HSR/N and SAC/N will create a home for HSR analysis and coordination in DHHS (the key agency for relevant HSR oversight), optimize federal and institutional approaches, and allow HSR review to evolve with greater knowledge about nanomedicine interventions and greater clarity about attributes of concern.

Building an ethical foundation for first-in-human nanotrials.

Novel nanomedical interventions require human testing to evaluate their safety and effectiveness. To establish a proper evidentiary basis for human trials, nanomedical innovations must first be subjected to animal and other laboratory testing. But it is uncertain whether the traditional laboratory approaches to safety evaluation will supply adequate information on nanotechnology risks to humans. This uncertainty, together with other features of nanomedical innovation, heightens the ethical challenges in conducting FIH nanotrials.

Stem cell research as innovation: expanding the ethical and policy conversation.

Research using human embryonic stem cells raises an array of complex ethical issues, including, but by no means limited to, the moral status of developing human life. Unfortunately much of the public discussion fails to take into account this complexity. Advocacy for liberal and conservative positions on human embryonic stem cell research can be simplistic and misleading. Ethical concepts such as truth-telling, scientific integrity, and social justice should be part of the debate over federal support for human embryonic stem cell research. Moreover, the debate should be conducted in accord with principles of deliberative democracy, including respect for people holding competing views.

Off-label prescribing: a call for heightened professional and government oversight.

Under current U.S. law, physicians may prescribe drugs and devices in situations not covered on the label approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Those supporting this system say that requiring FDA approval for off-label uses would unnecessarily impede the delivery of benefits to patients. Patients do benefit from off-label prescribing that is supported by sound scientific and medical evidence. In the absence of such evidence, however, off-label prescribing can expose patients to risky and ineffective treatments. The medical community and federal authorities should more actively promote patients' interests in receiving beneficial off-label treatments. To exercise responsible self-regulation, members of the medical community must determine whether available evidence justifies specific off-label uses and must promote information-gathering when the evidence is inadequate. Physicians should also discuss with patients the uncertainties accompanying off-label uses. Federal authorities should more closely monitor the effects of off-label prescribing and adopt other measures to reduce harm and enhance benefits produced by off-label prescribing.

First-in-human trial participants: not a vulnerable population, but vulnerable nonetheless.

The 21st-century translational science campaign could lead to an increase in first-in-human (FIH) trials. As tests of investigational interventions move from the laboratory to human research, scientists, officials, and review committees should address ongoing concerns about the ethics of FIH trials. In this article, I describe three ethical considerations relevant to all FIH trials: (1) the requirement for adequate preclinical research; (2) study design safeguards; and (3) choice of subject population. I also examine specific ethical considerations relevant to the three subject populations (healthy volunteers, seriously ill patients lacking standard treatment options, and stable patients) involved in FIH research. I recommend a variety of actions that could increase subject protection and the value of the information generated in FIH trials.

Private-sector research ethics: marketing or good conflicts management? The 2005 John J. Conley Lecture on Medical Ethics.

Pharmaceutical companies are major sponsors of biomedical research. Most scholars and policymakers focus their attention on government and academic oversight activities, however. In this article, I consider the role of pharmaceutical companies' internal ethics statements in guiding decisions about corporate research and development (R&D). I review materials from drug company websites and contributions from the business and medical ethics literature that address ethical responsibilities of businesses in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular. I discuss positive and negative uses of pharmaceutical companies' ethics materials and describe shortcomings in the companies' existing ethics programs. To guide employees and reassure outsiders, companies must add rigor, independence, and transparency to their R&D ethics programs.