Legal and Ethical Considerations for Requiring Consent for Apnea Testing in Brain Death Determination.

The past decade has witnessed escalating legal and ethical challenges to the diagnosis of death by neurologic criteria (DNC). The legal tactic of demanding consent for the apnea test, if successful, can halt the DNC. However, US law is currently unsettled and inconsistent in this matter. Consent has been required in several trial cases in Montana and Kansas but not in Virginia and Nevada. In this paper, we analyze and evaluate the legal and ethical bases for requiring consent before apnea testing and defend such a requirement by appealing to ethical and legal principles of informed consent and battery and the right to refuse medical treatment. We conclude by considering and rebutting two major objections to a consent requirement for apnea testing: (1) a justice-based objection to allocate scarce resources fairly and (2) a social utility objection that halting the diagnosis of brain death will reduce the number of organ donors.

Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium: Accelerating Evidence-Based Practice of Genomic Medicine.

Despite rapid technical progress and demonstrable effectiveness for some types of diagnosis and therapy, much remains to be learned about clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) and its role within the practice of medicine. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium includes 18 extramural research projects, one National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) intramural project, and a coordinating center funded by the NHGRI and National Cancer Institute. The consortium is exploring analytic and clinical validity and utility, as well as the ethical, legal, and social implications of sequencing via multidisciplinary approaches; it has thus far recruited 5,577 participants across a spectrum of symptomatic and healthy children and adults by utilizing both germline and cancer sequencing. The CSER consortium is analyzing data and creating publically available procedures and tools related to participant preferences and consent, variant classification, disclosure and management of primary and secondary findings, health outcomes, and integration with electronic health records. Future research directions will refine measures of clinical utility of CGES in both germline and somatic testing, evaluate the use of CGES for screening in healthy individuals, explore the penetrance of pathogenic variants through extensive phenotyping, reduce discordances in public databases of genes and variants, examine social and ethnic disparities in the provision of genomics services, explore regulatory issues, and estimate the value and downstream costs of sequencing. The CSER consortium has established a shared community of research sites by using diverse approaches to pursue the evidence-based development of best practices in genomic medicine.

Rethinking the "open future" argument against predictive genetic testing of children.

Professional consensus has traditionally discouraged predictive genetic testing when no childhood interventions can reduce future morbidity or mortality. However, advances in genome sequencing and accumulating evidence that children and families cope adequately with predictive genetic information have weakened this consensus. The primary argument remaining against testing appeals to children's "right to an open future." It claims that the autonomy of the future adult is violated when others make an irreversible choice to obtain or disclose predictive genetic information during childhood. We evaluate this argument and conclude that children's interest in an open future should not be understood as a right. Rather an open future is one significant interest to weigh against other important interests when evaluating decisions. Thus, predictive genetic testing is ethically permissible in principle, as long as the interests promoted outweigh potential harms. We conclude by offering an expanded model of children's interests that might be considered in such circumstances, and present two case analyses to illustrate how this framework better guides decisions about predictive genetic testing in pediatrics.

Ethical issues in pediatric face transplantation.

Facial transplantation has become a reality in adult medicine. Children are subject to congenital craniofacial differences, disease-related, traumatic, or thermochemical craniofacial changes and might be suitable for face transplantation. This manuscript addresses unique ethical issues in considering potential pediatric face transplant. These challenges are operant at the individual, technologic, and psychosocial level for clinicians, investigators, and society.

An ethical framework for responding to drug shortages in pediatric oncology.

The frequency of drug shortages has increased considerably over the last decade. Important ethical issues arise whenever the supply of an effective drug is insufficient to meet demand. Using the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, institutions can guide prioritization of drug distribution before a shortage occurs to avoid unfair and unethical distribution of resources. This analysis will give a historical context for drug shortages, identify, and explore the central ethical concerns raised by drug shortages, and propose an ethical framework for addressing them in the context of pediatric oncology.

Collectivizing rescue obligations in bioethics.

Bioethicists invoke a duty to rescue in a wide range of cases. Indeed, arguably, there exists an entire medical paradigm whereby vast numbers of medical encounters are treated as rescue cases. The intuitive power of the rescue paradigm is considerable, but much of this power stems from the problematic way that rescue cases are conceptualized-namely, as random, unanticipated, unavoidable, interpersonal events for which context is irrelevant and beneficence is the paramount value. In this article, I critique the basic assumptions of the rescue paradigm, reframe the ethical landscape in which rescue obligations are understood, and defend the necessity and value of a wider social and institutional view. Along the way, I move back and forth between ethical theory and a concrete case where the duty to rescue has been problematically applied: the purported duty to regularly return incidental findings and individual research results in genomic and genetic research.

Two Agendas for Bioethics: Critique and Integration.

Many bioethicists view the primary task of bioethics as 'value clarification'. In this article, I argue that the field must embrace two more ambitious agendas that go beyond mere clarification. The first agenda, critique, involves unmasking, interrogating, and challenging the presuppositions that underlie bioethical discourse. These largely unarticulated premises establish the boundaries within which problems can be conceptualized and solutions can be imagined. The function of critique, then, is not merely to clarify these premises but to challenge them and the boundaries they define. The second agenda, integration, involves honoring and unifying what is right in competing values. Integration is the morally ideal response to value conflict, offering the potential for transcending win/lose outcomes. The function of integration, then, is to envision actions or policies that not only resolve conflicts, but that do so by jointly realizing many genuine values in deep and compelling ways. My argument proceeds in stages. After critically examining the role and dominant status of value clarification in bioethical discourse, I describe the nature and value of the two agendas, identify concrete examples of where each has been and could be successful, and explain why a critical integrative bioethics--one that appreciates the joint necessity and symbiotic potential of the two agendas--is crucial to the future of the field. The ultimate goal of all of this is to offer a more compelling vision for how bioethics might conduct itself within the larger intellectual and social world it seeks to understand and serve.

Developing a community-led rare disease ELSI research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Research priorities are best defined through engagement with communities who will be impacted by the research and have lived experience of the topics to be studied. We aimed to establish a pediatric rare disease community stakeholder group and empower them in (1) eliciting perspectives from affected families in the wider region and (2) synthesizing collective ideas into a research agenda focused on shared ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) across rare disease. METHODS: This two-year project utilized a community-centered approach to engage rare disease community members as equal partners in developing a research agenda for ELSI in rare disease. We established "Rare Voices" (RV), a 22-member stakeholder group of patients, parents, clinicians and researchers. Following capacity-building trainings, RV designed and conducted listening sessions with teen patients and parents of children with rare diseases to explore challenges, positive experiences, and ethical concerns. Listening session findings were synthesized and contextualized into research topics, which RV members further refined and prioritized. We used established measures to assess RV member engagement and satisfaction. RESULTS: From 14 listening sessions with parents (n = 52) and teen patients (n = 13), RV identified eight core research topics as most important for future rare disease research: coordinating care, communication, accessing resources and care, impact on family unit, community and support in society, mental health and identity, ethical aspects of care, and uncertainty. RV members were highly engaged throughout the two-year project and reported high levels of satisfaction with the experience and research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Through capacity-building and authentic engagement, this project resulted in a community-led rare disease research agenda to guide future rare disease ELSI research that aligns with patients' and families' priorities. An environment of equal partnership and respect created a space for mutual learning where community members were empowered to shape the research agenda based on their collective experiences. The agenda recognizes the shared psychosocial and healthcare experiences of rare disease and offers practical areas of research to address patient and family needs.