At Last! Aye, and There's the Rub.

Mea culpa. In 1981 the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, of which I was the Executive Director, recommended to the President and Congress that all federal departments and agencies that conduct or support human subjects research adopt "as a common core" the HHS regulations, "while permitting additions needed by any department or agency that are not inconsistent with these core provisions." The commission believed-rightly, I still think-that having uniformity would ease administration, reduce regulatory burdens, simplify oversight, and make research more efficient. Yet our naïve expectation the task could be accomplished in 180 days meant that we failed to anticipate that if it took much longer-namely, the 10 years that passed before the Common Rule was issued-federal officials would thereafter be reluctant to change the regulations and that when they tried to do so twenty years later, with the issuance of the ANPRM in 2011, they would propose comprehensive revisions. I argue that was the wrong conclusion to draw from the difficulties in issuing the first Common Rule, and that the process of producing the new "final rule" on January 19, 2017-during which many of the proposed changes were either dumped or promulgated without being adequately vetted-reinforces the conclusion that a more incremental process, with ongoing involvement of the public through an advisory body like the President's Commission, would be a much better way to proceed.

A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices. METHODS: We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts. RESULTS: A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance.

Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices: A Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants. OBJECTIVE: To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014. SETTING: Web-based questionnaire. PATIENTS: 1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290). MEASUREMENTS: Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices. RESULTS: 97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%). LIMITATION: Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population. CONCLUSION: Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

Not Taking "Yes" for an Answer.

Does the practice of questioning the decision-making capacity of patients who disagree with recommended medical interventions amount to paternalism on the part of physicians who would not have raised questions about competence had these patients accepted the recommendation? Brudney and Siegler provide a nuanced argument why the practice can be both pragmatically and ethically justifiable, particularly if physicians follow a "decision tree" that they recommend for cases where disagreements occur. Nonetheless, the history of this subject shows that bioethicists have long been worried that the "outcome approach" (challenging patient's capacity because of substantive disagreements with their choices) undermines respect for autonomy, and the more refined version from Brudney and Siegler still creates some further concerns about the resulting inadequacies in communication and comprehension in the physician-patient relationship.

Circulatory death determination in uncontrolled organ donors: a panel viewpoint.

One barrier for implementing programs of uncontrolled organ donation after the circulatory determination of death is the lack of consensus on the precise moment of death. Our panel was convened to study this question after we performed a similar analysis on the moment of death in controlled organ donation after the circulatory determination of death. We concluded that death could be determined by showing the permanent or irreversible cessation of circulation and respiration. Circulatory irreversibility may be presumed when optimal cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts have failed to restore circulation and at least a 7-minute period has elapsed thereafter during which autoresuscitation to restored circulation could occur. We advise against the use of postmortem organ support technologies that reestablish circulation of warm oxygenated blood because of their risk of retroactively invalidating the required conditions on which death was declared.

The ubiquity of 'self-care' in health: Why specificity matters.

Despite increased interest in self-care for health, little consensus exists around its definition and scope. The World Health Organization has published several definitions of self-care, including in a 2019 Global Guideline rooted in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), later expanded to encompass health more generally. To establish a robust understanding of self-care, this exploratory study inventorises, consolidates, presents and analyses definitions of self-care beyond the SRHR field. A pragmatic review identified definitions and conceptualisations of self-care from peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2009 and 2021. The search identified 91 definitions of self-care from 116 relevant publications. Data extraction informed analysis to identify recurring themes and approaches, revealing three key areas of variation: self-care being: (1) defined directly or descriptively; (2) situated within individual, interpersonal or structural contexts; (3) defined broadly or topic-specifically. A multilevel conceptualisation can guide a more broadly applicable understanding of self-care: first, as an aspect of healthcare; second, as a concept operating at individual, interpersonal and institutional levels; third, as a concept that impacts specific health fields and contexts differently. A comprehensive but adaptable framework works in service of improving health and wellbeing for all, acknowledging the linkages between self-care and health-related human rights.

Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions on Nursing Home Residents', Families', and Staff's Perceptions of Bioethical Principles: A Qualitative Study.

In this study, we employed a pre-interview survey and conducted interviews with nursing home staff members and residents/family members to understand their perceptions of whether the COVID-19 restrictions fulfilled obligations to nursing home residents under various principles, including autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and privacy. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with staff members from 14 facilities, and 20 with residents and/or family members from 13 facilities. We used a qualitative descriptive study design and thematic analysis methodology to analyze the interviews. Findings from the pre-interview survey indicated that, compared to nursing home staff, residents and their families perceived lower adherence to bioethics principles during the pandemic. Qualitative analysis themes included specific restrictions, challenges, facility notifications, consequences, communication, and relationships between staff and residents/family members. Our study exposes the struggle to balance infection control with respecting bioethical principles in nursing homes, suggesting avenues for improving processes and policies during public health emergencies.

Knowledge gaps in heart and lung donation after the circulatory determination of death: Report of a workshop of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice.

Voucher-Based Kidney Donation and Redemption for Future Transplant.

Importance: Policy makers, transplant professionals, and patient organizations agree that there is a need to increase the number of kidney transplants by facilitating living donation. Vouchers for future transplant provide a means of overcoming the chronological incompatibility that occurs when the ideal time for living donation differs from the time at which the intended recipient actually needs a transplant. However, uncertainty remains regarding the actual change in the number of living kidney donors associated with voucher programs and the capability of voucher redemptions to produce timely transplants. Objective: To examine the consequences of voucher-based kidney donation and the capability of voucher redemptions to provide timely kidney allografts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study of 79 transplant centers across the US used data from the National Kidney Registry from January 1, 2014, to January 31, 2021, to identify all family vouchers and patterns in downstream kidney-paired donations. The analysis included living kidney donors and recipients participating in the National Kidney Registry family voucher program. Exposures: A voucher was provided to the intended recipient at the time of donation. Vouchers had no cash value and could not be sold, bartered, or transferred to another person. When a voucher was redeemed, a living donation chain was used to return a kidney to the voucher holder. Main Outcomes and Measures: Deidentified demographic and clinical data from each kidney donation were evaluated, including the downstream patterns in kidney-paired donation. Voucher redemptions were separately evaluated and analyzed. Results: Between 2014 and 2021, 250 family voucher-based donations were facilitated. Each donation precipitated a transplant chain with a mean (SD) length of 2.3 (1.6) downstream kidney transplants, facilitating 573 total transplants. Of those, 111 transplants (19.4%) were performed in highly sensitized recipients. Among 250 voucher donors, the median age was 46 years (range, 19-78 years), and 157 donors (62.8%) were female, 241 (96.4%) were White, and 104 (41.6%) had blood type O. Over a 7-year period, the waiting time for those in the National Kidney Registry exchange pool decreased by more than 3 months. Six vouchers were redeemed, and 3 of those redemptions were among individuals with blood type O. The time from voucher redemption to kidney transplant ranged from 36 to 155 days. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the family voucher program appeared to mitigate a major disincentive to living kidney donation, namely the reluctance to donate a kidney in the present that could be redeemed in the future if needed. The program facilitated kidney donations that may not otherwise have occurred. All 6 of the redeemed vouchers produced timely kidney transplants, indicating the capability of the voucher program.

Expanding controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death: statement from an international collaborative.

A decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WLST) is derived by a conclusion that further treatment will not enable a patient to survive or will not produce a functional outcome with acceptable quality of life that the patient and the treating team regard as beneficial. Although many hospitalized patients die under such circumstances, controlled donation after the circulatory determination of death (cDCDD) programs have been developed only in a reduced number of countries. This International Collaborative Statement aims at expanding cDCDD in the world to help countries progress towards self-sufficiency in transplantation and offer more patients the opportunity of organ donation. The Statement addresses three fundamental aspects of the cDCDD pathway. First, it describes the process of determining a prognosis that justifies the WLST, a decision that should be prior to and independent of any consideration of organ donation and in which transplant professionals must not participate. Second, the Statement establishes the permanent cessation of circulation to the brain as the standard to determine death by circulatory criteria. Death may be declared after an elapsed observation period of 5 min without circulation to the brain, which confirms that the absence of circulation to the brain is permanent. Finally, the Statement highlights the value of perfusion repair for increasing the success of cDCDD organ transplantation. cDCDD protocols may utilize either in situ or ex situ perfusion consistent with the practice of each country. Methods to accomplish the in situ normothermic reperfusion of organs must preclude the restoration of brain perfusion to not invalidate the determination of death.