The Costs of Contradictory Messages About Live Vaccines in Pregnancy.

The increased risk of harm from COVID-19 infection in pregnancy highlights the importance of including pregnant people in COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment. Promising vaccines being developed include replication-competent platforms, which are typically contraindicated during pregnancy because of theoretical risk. However, replicating vaccines are administered in and around pregnancy, either inadvertently because of unknown pregnancy status or when recommended.The historical cases of Ebola virus, yellow fever, and rubella demonstrate that contradictory messages around the safety of live vaccines in pregnancy have critical public health costs. First, restricting study or use of replicating vaccines in pregnancy may delay or deny access to the only available protection against deadly diseases. Additionally, not vaccinating pregnant people may slow epidemic control. Finally, uncertainty and worry around the safety of live vaccines may lead to terminations of otherwise desired pregnancies after inadvertent vaccination in pregnancy.If one of the vaccines deployed to combat the current global COVID-19 pandemic is replication competent, historical cases offer important lessons for ethical and effective protection for pregnant populations.

Views among Malawian women about joining HIV prevention clinical trials when pregnant.

BACKGROUND: The pressing need to expand the biomedical HIV prevention evidence base during pregnancy is now increasingly recognized. Women's views regarding participation in such trials and initiating PrEP while pregnant are critical to inform evolving policy and best practices aimed at responsibly expanding evidence-based access for this population. METHODS: We conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with reproductive-aged women in Malawi in the local language, Chichewa. Participants were HIV-negative and purposively sampled to capture a range of experience with research during pregnancy. Women's perspectives on enrolling in three hypothetical HIV prevention trial vignettes while pregnant were explored, testing: (1) oral PrEP (Truvada) (2) a vaginal ring (dapivirine), and (3) a randomized trial comparing the two. The vignettes were read aloud to participants and a simple visual was provided. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and coded using NVivo 11. Thematic analysis informed the analytic approach. RESULTS: A majority of women accepted participation in all trials. Women's views on research participation varied largely based on their assessment of whether participation or nonparticipation would best protect their own health and that of their offspring. Women interested in participating described power dynamics with their partner as fueling their HIV exposure concerns and highlighted health benefits of participation-principally, HIV protection and access to testing/treatment and ancillary care, and perceived potential risks of the vignettes as low. Women who were uninterested in participating highlighted potential maternal and fetal health risks of the trial, challenges of justifying prevention use to their partner, and raised some modality-specific concerns. Women also described ways their social networks, sense of altruism and adherence requirements would influence participation decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants conveyed strong interest in participating in biomedical HIV prevention research during pregnancy, largely motivated by a desire to protect themselves and their offspring. Our results are consistent with other studies that found high acceptance of HIV prevention products during pregnancy, and support the current direction of HIV research policies and practices that are increasingly aimed at protecting the health of pregnant women and their offspring through responsible research, rather than defaulting to their exclusion.

Ethical and counseling challenges in prenatal exome sequencing.

OBJECTIVE: Ethical and counseling challenges are expected with the introduction of prenatal whole exome sequencing. In this study, we describe specific challenges identified through the UNC-Chapel Hill Prenatal Exome Sequencing Study. METHODS: Participants were a subset of women participating in the fetal exome study, which has enrolled 73 mother-father-fetus trios in pregnancies diagnosed with structural anomalies and normal standard genetic testing results. In this descriptive study, cases were reviewed by members of the research team, including a bioethicist, to identify counseling challenges. Illustrative cases were chosen by group consensus. RESULTS: Four illustrative cases were identified for further analysis. Challenges included need for adequate counseling and informed consent, challenges in prenatal variant interpretation, performing prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies, inability to identify a genetic etiology, and identifying parental secondary findings. CONCLUSION: Our study illustrates several challenges identified in an ongoing prenatal exome study. While genomic medicine is a powerful tool for prenatal diagnosis, it is important that clinicians understand the ethical implications and parental perceptions of this testing modality.

Reframing Conscientious Care: Providing Abortion Care When Law and Conscience Collide.

Much of the debate on conscience has addressed the ethics of refusal: the rights of providers to refuse to perform procedures to which they object and the interests of the patients who might be harmed by their refusals. But conscience can also be a positive force, grounding decision about offering care.

Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post-Dobbs Landscape.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a growing web of state laws restricts access to abortion. Here we consider how, ethically, doctors should respond when terminating a pregnancy is clinically indicated but state law imposes restrictions on doing so. We offer a typology of cases in which the dilemma emerges and a brief sketch of the current state of legal prohibitions against providing such care. We examine the issue from the standpoints of conscience, professional ethics, and civil disobedience and conclude that it is almost always morally permissible and praiseworthy to break the law and that, in a subset of cases, it is morally obligatory to do so. We further argue that health care institutions that employ or credential physicians to provide reproductive health care have an ethical duty to provide a basic suite of practical supports for them as they work to ethically resolve the dilemmas before them.

Teratology research in the shadow of the Dobbs decision.

Following the 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, numerous states have passed laws banning or severely restricting abortion. The consequences of the decision stretch beyond abortion contexts, including progress on developing a more robust evidence base for care in pregnancy. In this Robert L. Brent lecture, I explore the impact of the Dobbs decision on teratology research, arguing that it is of importance even and perhaps especially for those concerned about the moral complexities of ending a pregnancy. For as abortion restrictions threaten teratology research, they also threaten its life-affirming aims. First, I show how teratology research and abortion are intertwined, highlighting the stories of Sherri Finkbine and Frances Kelsey, two courageous women whose lives intersected with both. Second, I describe how restrictions on abortion make teratology research more difficult and ethically complex, highlighting additional risks to research participants and staff, as well as new challenges to scientific validity and feasibility. And third, foregrounding yet another story of courage (and heartbreak), I highlight how abortion restrictions make teratology research more important than ever. Honoring Dr. Brent's legacy requires addressing-rather than avoiding-the ethical challenges of pregnancy-related research, especially now in the post-Dobbs era.

Exclusion of Women from Phase I Trials: Perspectives from Investigators and Research Oversight Officials.

Over the past 30 years, progress has been made in increasing women's representation in clinical research. However, women continue to be underrepresented in phase I clinical trials-those trials that test the safety and tolerability of investigational drugs, often on healthy individuals. As sex-based differences in adverse drug reactions are often linked to drug dose, pivotal safety information in phase I trials is often insufficiently-and inequitably-captured for females. Yet there has been little attention to how clinical investigators and those charged with overseeing the ethical conduct of these trials perceive the barriers to women's inclusion in phase I trials. To address this gap, we report on 22 interviews with U.S. phase I investigators and institutional review board (IRB) members. Our findings indicate that although these investigators and IRB members acknowledged the importance of including women in clinical trials, they justified women's exclusion from phase I trials by citing the need to manage their reproductive potential. In particular, we identified four key themes that informants used to warrant women's exclusion from phase I trials: the structure of the drug-development system itself, fears about risks to potential fetuses, distrust of women to prevent pregnancy, and concerns about risks and burdens to institutions from resulting pregnancies. We argue that these rationales reflect structural and cultural barriers to women's inclusion in clinical research that ultimately fail to respect female research participants as persons, highlighting the need for broad-based solutions.

Ethics and "normal birth".

The concept of "normal birth" has been promoted as ideal by several international organizations, although debate about its meaning is ongoing. In this article, I examine the concept of normalcy to explore its ethical implications and raise a trio of concerns. First, in its emphasis on nonuse of technology as a goal, the concept of normalcy may marginalize women for whom medical intervention is necessary or beneficial. Second, in its emphasis on birth as a socially meaningful event, the mantra of normalcy may unintentionally avert attention to meaning in medically complicated births. Third, the emphasis on birth as a normal and healthy event may be a contributor to the long-standing tolerance for the dearth of evidence guiding the treatment of illness during pregnancy and the failure to responsibly and productively engage pregnant women in health research. Given these concerns, it is worth debating not just what "normal birth" means, but whether the term as an ideal earns its keep.

The language of birth.

Our language both reflects and influences our attitudes and behavior. This Roundtable Discussion explores the language used in obstetrics and in the interactions between caregivers and women or their families: What do practitioners say to mothers and families during labor? At birth? In consultations? To describe what is happening? To encourage a woman's efforts? To lighten the atmosphere? When advising about possible interventions? Medical terminology in perinatal care can often be deceptive or confusing, not only for mothers but for caregivers. The authors of this Roundtable, representing health professionals from different specialties and interests in the field, have examined some examples of such language use, misuse, and abuse in perinatal care. (BIRTH 39:2 June 2012).

'Experimental pregnancy' revisited.

In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled "Experimental Pregnancy." It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit "Experimental Pregnancy" and offer two ways in which Bob's analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy's presumed exceptionalism.

Clinical trials in pregnancy and the "shadows of thalidomide": Revisiting the legacy of Frances Kelsey.

Despite great need for improved understanding of the use of drugs and biological products in pregnancy, clinical trials in pregnancy are rare, therapeutics in pregnancy are woefully understudied, and pregnant individuals are routinely excluded as trial participants. Recently, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signaled strong support for advancing scientific research with pregnant populations, marking a significant shift from the past. Over the last sixty years, precaution and fear have largely characterized clinical research in pregnancy, deriving in large part from a protectionist ethic that materialized after the thalidomide drug disaster. FDA reviewer Frances Kelsey courageously prevented thalidomide from being marketed in the United States, and her work guided and solidified the FDA's image as protector of the general population from unsafe and ineffective drugs. Yet, when it comes to protection, pregnant persons have been left behind, and experts refer to the "shadows of thalidomide" that hamper clinical trials in pregnancy. Drawing on analysis of Frances Kelsey's archived papers in addition to focused media coverage of Kelsey and thalidomide, we discuss the durable cultural narrative surrounding Kelsey's important work. We argue that revisiting Kelsey's legacy with attention to themes that have characterized her achievement-staying vigilant, prioritizing safety, and mitigating pharmaceutical-based harm-in fact facilitates progress toward the ethical obligation to protect pregnant people through research, toward the generation of pregnancy-specific data for evidence-based care, and toward realizing Kelsey's legacy of safeguarding pregnant people and their offspring from the harms of untested drugs.

Where are the pregnant and breastfeeding women in new pre-exposure prophylaxis trials? The imperative to overcome the evidence gap.

Pregnant and breastfeeding populations are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV in some settings, yet are underrepresented in clinical trials of new pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) agents. Several PrEP formulations are in development (eg, vaginal rings, long-acting injectables, and other modalities). Pregnant and breastfeeding populations are typically excluded from initial clinical trials. We identified 14 PrEP trials of novel agents in non-pregnant or non-breastfeeding populations, and six phase 1-3 trials and open label extensions among pregnant and breastfeeding populations, that are currently ongoing or complete. A framework shift is needed to consider the ethical costs of excluding pregnant and breastfeeding populations at risk for HIV in PrEP clinical trials and promote inclusion to maximise the benefits from PrEP tools in the pipeline. Research on new PrEP agents should include pregnant and breastfeeding populations to avoid delays in reaching those who could benefit from PrEP after efficacy is established.

Advancing research in pregnancy during COVID-19: Missed opportunities and momentum in the US.

Pregnant people's exclusion from COVID-19 vaccine research highlights both the harms of excluding pregnant people from clinical trials and the growing public support for their equitable inclusion. Protectionary tendencies must be challenged for the sake of progress. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to translate recognition of an unjust paradigm into action.

Evaluating the National Institutes of Health's Sex as a Biological Variable Policy: Conflicting Accounts from the Front Lines of Animal Research.

Background: Since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993, focus on the equitable inclusion of women in clinical research has been ongoing. NIH's 2015 sex as a biological variable (SABV) policy aims to transform research design, analysis, and reporting in the preclinical sphere by including male and female organisms in vertebrate animal research as well as human studies. However, questions remain regarding how researchers and members of research oversight committees perceive the value and need of the SABV policy. Materials and Methods: Based on 62 interviews with animal researchers and oversight personnel, we analyze what the animal research community knows about the policy and sees as the benefits and challenges of implementation. Results: We found that the 62 interviewees disagreed about the need for the policy, with some being supportive and others questioning whether the policy is based on science or is politically motivated. There were also tensions in how interviewees conceptualized the challenges to and resources needed for implementing the SABV policy. For instance, while some thought implementation would require a significant increase in numbers of animals used for each study, others explicitly rejected this claim. Conclusions: We conclude by discussing the practical and social implications of our findings about the views of members of the animal research community regarding the SABV policy.