The Ethical Stewardship of Artificial Intelligence in Chronic Pain and Headache: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are becoming more pervasive in medicine, understanding their ethical considerations for chronic pain and headache management is crucial for optimizing their safety. RECENT FINDINGS: We reviewed thirty-eight editorial and original research articles published between 2018 and 2023, focusing on the application of AI and ML to chronic pain or headache. The core medical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice constituted the evaluation framework. The AI applications addressed topics such as pain intensity prediction, diagnostic aides, risk assessment for medication misuse, empowering patients to self-manage their conditions, and optimizing access to care. Virtually all AI applications aligned both positively and negatively with specific medical ethics principles. This review highlights the potential of AI to enhance patient outcomes and physicians' experiences in managing chronic pain and headache. We emphasize the importance of carefully considering the advantages, disadvantages, and unintended consequences of utilizing AI tools in chronic pain and headache, and propose the four core principles of medical ethics as an evaluation framework.

Optimizing pediatric periprocedural pain management part I-Evolving ethics and topical anesthetics.

Pediatric procedure-related pain management is often incompletely understood, inadequately addressed, and critical in influencing a child's lifelong relationship with the larger health care community. We highlight the evolution of ethics and expectations around optimizing periprocedural pain management as a fundamental human right. We investigate the state-of-the-art of topical anesthetics, reviewing their mechanisms of action and providing comparisons of their relative safety and efficacy data to help guide clinical selection. In total, this two-part review offers a combination of conventional approaches and innovative techniques that should be used multimodally-in series and in parallel-to help optimize pain management and provide alternatives to sedation medication and general anesthesia.

The Effect of the Consent Process on Patient Satisfaction With Pain Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aim to determine whether the timing and context of informed consent affects the subjective outcome of patient satisfaction with pain management. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in a single emergency department (ED). Patients aged 18 years or older with a triage pain score of greater than or equal to 4 provided consent to participate in a pain management study. They were randomized to consent in the ED or at follow-up. All patients were followed up at 48 hours post-ED discharge. Patients who consented at follow-up were unaware of the study until cold called. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with pain management. Secondary analyses examined effects on follow-up and participation rates. Variables associated with patients' being very satisfied were determined with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Outcome data were obtained on 655 of 825 patients enrolled (79.4%). Patients who provided consent at follow-up were less likely to be very satisfied compared with those who consented in the ED (difference in proportions 11.5%; 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 19.4). Follow-up and participation rates did not differ between the groups. Patients who received pain advice and adequate analgesia (both as defined in this study) were more likely to be very satisfied (odds ratio 5.18, 95% confidence interval 2.82 to 9.52; and odds ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 2.22, respectively). CONCLUSION: The timing and context of informed consent significantly affect the subjective outcome of patient satisfaction, and this should be considered during study design. Clinicians should strive to provide pain advice and adequate analgesia to maximize their patients' satisfaction.

Preliminary survey of the attitudes of Brazilian scientists towards pain management and assessment in animals used in science.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the current scenario in Brazil regarding pain assessment and control in experimental animals. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective survey. METHODS: A confidential questionnaire was available online and sent by e-mail to Brazilian scientists working with animal experimentation in Brazil. Data collection was conducted from October 2016 to October 2017. The exclusion criteria included blank questionnaires or with <80% completed responses, researchers not performing experiments involving animals and foreign scientists. RESULTS: A total of 96 questionnaires from 104 respondents were analyzed. The Fisher's exact test showed a disparity between the proportions of scientists who recognized the importance of analgesia and their application of analgesic techniques in painful procedures (p < 0.0003), and also for the researchers who assumed that experiments inflicted pain and their classification of the degree of invasiveness (p < 0.0001), indicating their insufficient knowledge of these topics. Overall, 77% of institutions did not offer specific training to assess pain in experimental animals, and 24% of respondents had no training to work with animal experimentation. In total, 62% of the studies inflicted pain, 48% of respondents used pain scales, and the drugs administered most frequently for pain management were morphine (44%), meloxicam (43%) and tramadol (37%); 15% of respondents did not include analgesics even though their studies inflicted pain. Commonly used animals were rats (33%), mice (29%) and rabbits (8%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this preliminary survey indicated that in Brazil there is a gap in the knowledge and training on pain assessment and management of experimental animals. Therefore, there is a necessity for an educational program to prepare and train scientists to assess and manage pain in laboratory or experimental animals. Further studies using a psychometrically validated survey instrument are warranted.

An ethical exploration of the narratives surrounding substance use and pain management at the end of life: a discussion paper.

This discussion article examines narrative positioning related to pain management for people who use substances at the end of life. We explore how dominant narrative genres associated with biomedicine, such as 'restitution' and narratives common within the context of drug services such as 'recovery' can hinder effective pain management within this population. We argue that these discourses can marginalise the ethical self-identity of patients who use substances at the end of life. It can also trouble health and social care professionals in supporting patients and generating counter-narratives that challenge those often associated with substance use. Stigma is a common experience for this population with stereotyping as 'junkies' and associated with criminality. They are positioned as drug-seeking, and this requires more surveillance at the end of life when opioid therapy is potentially more available and authorised. This can make it challenging to generate 'companion' stories that are positive and maintain moral adequacy. Dominant biomedical narrative genres often prevent the recognition of the fractured stories that people using substances can often present with. This can lead to narrative silencing and to the under treatment of pain. The person's self-identity is invested in narratives of recovery, and opioid use symbolises their addicted past because for practitioners, this population is at clinical risk with the potential for drug seeking behaviours. Whilst not requiring formal ethical review this discussion paper was constructed in accordance with good scientific practice with the work of other researchers respected and cited appropriately.

Opioid Prescribing and the Ethical Duty to Do No Harm.

Doctors have two ethical duties: to cure disease or ease suffering and, also, to do no harm. The ethical duty to "Do No Harm" has been used to justify two sides of a pendulum swing in the philosophy of opioid prescribing for pain. In the 1990s, it was invoked to expand prescribing, and more recently to justify dramatic reductions in prescription opioid use. In this Article, we explore whether prescribing opioids for pain presents challenges that differ from the ordinary mandate physicians face as they balance the call for action with the imperative to do no harm [DNH].We argue that the treatment of pain differs in three important ways. First, the fact that pain is present and occurrent reduces uncertainty about the need for action, and thus strengthens the reasons to act. Second, while DNH applies to both physicians and policymakers, each has distinct duties: physicians have a duty to the individual patient; policymakers have a duty to society. As a result, harm from drug diversion should weigh little when clinicians decide how to treat individual patients. Public health officials, by contrast, rightly consider societal effects. However, in doing so, they must adopt policies that mitigate the ethical burdens placed on physicians, respect the testimony of patients in pain, and pay particular attention to how policy guidance is likely to be implemented by others. Finally, we address what duties are owed to patients who are currently taking opioid medication, given evidence that they are experiencing significant barriers in receiving healthcare. We argue that once treatment has been initiated, there are special duties to these patients.

'I just need an opiate refill to get me through the weekend'.

In this article, we discuss the ethical dimensions for the prescribing behaviours of opioids for a chronic pain patient, a scenario commonly witnessed by many physicians. The opioid epidemic in the USA and Canada is well known, existing since the late 1990s, and individuals are suffering and dying as a result of the easy availability of prescription opioids. More recently, this problem has been seen outside of North America affecting individuals at similar rates in Australia and Europe. We argue that physicians are also confronted with an ethical crisis where a capitalist-consumerist society is contributing to this opioid crisis in which societal, legal and business interests push physicians to overprescribe opioids. Individual physicians often find themselves unequipped and unsupported in attempts to curb the prescribing of opioid medications and balance competing goals of alleviating pain against the judicious use of pain medications. Physicians, individually and as a community, must reclaim the ethical mantle of our profession, through a more nuanced understanding of autonomy and beneficence. Furthermore, physicians and the medical community at large have a fiduciary duty to patients and society to play a more active role in curbing the widespread distribution of opioids in our communities.

Can women in labor give informed consent to epidural analgesia?

There are reasons to believe that decision-making capacity (mental competence) of women in labor may be compromised in relation to giving informed consent to epidural analgesia. Not only severe labor pain, but also stress, anxiety, and premedication of analgesics such as opioids, may influence women's decisional capacity. Decision-making capacity is a complex construct involving cognitive and emotional components which cannot be reduced to 'understanding' alone. A systematic literature search identified a total of 20 empirical studies focused on women's decision-making about epidural analgesia for labor pain. Our review of these studies suggests that empirical evidence to date is insufficient to determine whether women undergoing labor are capable of consenting to epidural analgesia. Given such uncertainties, sufficient information about pain management should be provided as part of prenatal education and the consent process must be carefully conducted to enhance women's autonomy. To fill in the significant gap in clinical knowledge about laboring women's decision-making capacity, well-designed prospective and retrospective studies may be required.

American Society for Pain Management Nursing and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association Position Statement: Pain Management at the End of Life.

Pain at the end of life continues to be of great concern as it may be unrecognized or untreated. Although nurses have an ethical obligation to reduce suffering, barriers remain regarding appropriate and adequate pain management at the end of life. This joint position statement from the American Society for Pain Management Nursing and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association contains recommendations for nurses, prescribers, and institutions that would improve pain management for this vulnerable population.

Opioids and pain in the emergency department: a narrative crisis.

The opioid crisis poses challenges to patients who come to the emergency department (ED) in pain and the clinicians who have a duty to offer relief. In search of help, patients often find suspicion. But clinicians have reasons to be concerned about feeding addiction and its lethal consequences. This article discusses the narrative challenges facing many clinicians in the ED tasked with caring for complex patients in pain. It will discuss the many ways our brains are influenced by story, and how this susceptibility is often beyond our grasp. And yet, narrative and story skills present great opportunities for improving pain management, not only when it comes to opioids, but by returning the focus back to the patient in pain.

The ethics of postoperative pain management: Mapping nurses' views.

AIM: We explored the positions of nurses working in hospitals regarding the acceptability of refusing to give a repeat dose of painkiller to a postoperative patient who requested it. These positions were compared with that of lay people, physicians, and other health professionals. DESIGN AND METHODS: Factorial design was used to assess the impact of 6 situational factors: the patient's age, the current level of pain as assessed by the nurse, the number of requests, the level of risk associated with the administration of a repeat dose, the outcome of surgery, and the giving of alternative mild analgesics. We implemented a combination of scenario technique and of cluster analysis. Data were collected from April 2013 to December 2015. PARTICIPANTS: 138 registered nurses, 32 nurse's aides, 33 physicians, 23 psychologists, and 169 lay people participated in the study. RESULTS: We found 4 qualitatively different meaningful positions. A plurality of participants (57% of nurses) considered that refusing was not acceptable, irrespective of circumstances. A substantial minority of participants (but 52% of physicians) considered that refusing was acceptable only if the level of pain was low and the risk was high. Other participants (mostly lay people) considered that refusing was always acceptable each time a risk of side effects, either serious or simply mild, was present.

Ethics of research for patients in pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review describes advances in rising and continuing ethical issues in research in patients in pain. Although some of the issues focus directly on pain research, such as research in neonatal pain management, others focus on widespread ethical issues that are relevant to pain research, such as scientific misconduct, deception, placebo use and genomics. RECENT FINDINGS: Scientific misconduct is more widespread than realized and requires greater awareness of the markers of misconduct like irreproducibility. More education about what qualifies as misconduct, such as consent violations, plagiarism and inappropriate patient recruitment along with data falsification needs to be implemented. Wayward researchers may attend a rehabilitation conference to improve their practices. Studies in neonatal pain management do not require comparing an intervention with the inadequate analgesia of a placebo; comparing with a standard approach is sufficient. Deception of research patients may be acceptable under narrow circumstances. The legitimacy of using broad informed consent for biobanking and genomic studies are being challenged as changes to the Common Rule are being considered. SUMMARY: Increasing complexity and the desire to further medical knowledge complicates research methods and informed consent. The ethical issues surrounding these and offshoot areas will continue to develop.

Past, Present, and Future of Informed Consent in Pain and Genomics Research: Challenges Facing Global Medical Community.

In recent decades, there has been a revision of the role of institutional review boards with the intention of protecting human subjects from harm and exploitation in research. Informed consent aims to protect the subject by explaining all of the benefits and risks associated with a specific research project. To date, there has not been a review published analyzing issues of informed consent in research in the field of genetic/Omics in subjects with chronic pain, and the current review aims to fill that gap in the ethical aspects of such investigation. Despite the extensive discussion on ethical challenges unique to the field of genetic/Omics, this is the first attempt at addressing ethical challenges regarding Informed Consent Forms for pain research as the primary focus. We see this contribution as an important one, for while ethical issues are too often ignored in pain research in general, the numerous arising ethical issues that are unique to pain genetic/Omics suggest that researchers in the field need to pay even greater attention to the rights of subjects/patients. This article presents the work of the Ethic Committee of the Pain-Omics Group (www.painomics.eu), a consortium of 11 centers that is running the Pain-Omics project funded by the European Community in the 7th Framework Program theme (HEALTH.2013.2.2.1-5-Understanding and controlling pain). The Ethic Committee is composed of 1 member of each group of the consortium as well as key opinion leaders in the field of ethics and pain more generally.

Response: Freedom from Pain as a Rawlsian Primary Good.

In a recent article in this journal, Carl Knight and Andreas Albertsen argue that Rawlsian theories of distributive justice as applied to health and healthcare fail to accommodate both palliative care and the desirability of less painful treatments. The asserted Rawlsian focus on opportunities or capacities, as exemplified in Normal Daniels' developments of John Rawls' theory, results in a normative account of healthcare which is at best only indirectly sensitive to pain and so unable to account for the value of efforts of which the sole purpose is pain reduction. I argue that, far from undermining the Rawlsian project and its application to problems of health, what the authors' argument at most amounts to is a compelling case for the inclusion of freedom from physical pain within its index of primary goods.

Why is Pain Still Under-Treated in the Emergency Department? Two New Hypotheses.

Across the world, pain is under-treated in emergency departments (EDs). We canvass the literature testifying to this problem, the reasons why this problem is so important, and then some of the main hypotheses that have been advanced in explanation of the problem. We then argue for the plausibility of two new hypotheses: pain's under-treatment in the ED is due partly to (1) an epistemic preference for signs over symptoms on the part of some practitioners, and (2) some ED practices that themselves worsen pain by increasing patients' anxiety and fear. Our argument includes the following logic. Some ED practitioners depart from formal guidance in basing their acute pain assessments on observable features rather than on patient reports of pain. This is potentially due to an epistemic preference for signs over symptoms which aims to circumvent intentional and/or unintentional misrepresentation on the part of patients. However, conducting pain assessments in line with this epistemic preference contributes to the under-treatment of pain in at least three respects, which we detail. Moreover, it may do little to help the practitioner circumvent any intentional misrepresentation on the part of the patient, as we explain. Second, we examine at least four ED practices that may be contributing to the under-treatment of pain by increasing patient anxiety and fear, which can worsen pain. These practices include failing to provide orienting information and partially objectifying patients so as to problem-solve along lines pre-established by modern medical science. We conclude by touching on some potential solutions for ED practice.

A Comprehensive Approach to the Patient at End of Life: Assessment of Multidimensional Suffering.

Pain is a multidimensional, complex experience. There are many challenges in identifying and meeting the needs of patients experiencing pain. Evaluation of pain from a bio-psycho-social-spiritual framework is particularly germane for patients approaching the end of life. This review explores the relation between the psychospiritual dimensions of suffering and the experience of physical pain, and how to assess and treat pain in a multidimensional framework. A review of empirical data on the relation between pain and suffering as well as interdisciplinary evidence-based approaches to alleviate suffering are provided.

[On the anthropological relevance of pain]. / Zum anthropologischen Stellenwert des Schmerzes.

Medicine is increasingly being confronted with expectations that it provide more permanent and comprehensive freedom from pain - and the prospect of being pain free is partially even being held out by medical science itself. In our cultural context, there is now the established idea that pain is something that medical science and technology can - and must - "get rid of." This idea is particularly problematic when it comes to chronic pain. Furthermore, it obscures the fact that pain is a significant element of life and one that can have existential meaning. Therefore, it is crucial to reflect on the scope of this wish for medicine to relieve and eliminate pain.

[Knowledge and attitude of medical students in Germany towards palliative care : Does the final year of medical school make a difference?]. / Wissen und Selbsteinschätzung in Bezug auf palliativmedizinische Fragestellungen bei Medizinstudierenden : Macht das praktische Jahr einen Unterschied?

BACKGROUND: The practical year (PY) during the final year of medical education is intended to deepen and broaden knowledge, skills, and abilities that were acquired during previous years of their studies. Against this background, this study pursues the question of how the knowledge of future physicians and their confidence in terms of cancer pain therapy and other palliative care issues develops during the PY. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At the end of the PY, students from two university hospitals completed a 3-part online questionnaire (self-assessment of the confidence, questions about palliative care knowledge, and assessment of palliative care training during the PY). These results are compared with previously published data from the same collective that had been collected at the beginning of the PY. RESULTS: Overall, 92 of 318 students participated (28.9 %). Less than 10 % of students said that they were more confident regarding palliative care topics at the end of their medical studies. Improvements in the self-assessment could only be observed in the recognition of and screening for cancer pain (increase from 36 % to 65%). With regard to the palliative care knowledge, only the knowledge of how to treat symptoms other than pain improved significantly; however, knowledge in this regard prior to the PY was particularly low (an increase from 25 % to 35 %, p < 0.05). In the only multiple-choice question about ethics, the correct answer rose slightly from 51 % (before) to 55 % (after the PY). Of participating students, 21% (prior to the PY 27 %) stated that not providing fluids to dying patients is a form of euthanasia. In terms of palliative care training, between 36 and 83 % of participants stated having insufficient opportunities to gain knowledge and experience on various topics in the treatment of patients with advanced and incurable diseases during their PY. CONCLUSION: In the present study, considerable deficits in confidence and knowledge regarding palliative care issues were also observed at the end of PY. Integration of palliative care into the medical school curriculums should be given special attention in terms of a longitudinal training of the PY.

Ethical Tensions in the Pain Management of an End-Stage Cancer Patient with Evidence of Opioid Medication Diversion.

At the end of life, pain management is commonly a fundamental part of the treatment plan for patients where curative measures are no longer possible. However, the increased recognition of opioid diversion for secondary gain coupled with efforts to treat patients in the home environment towards the end of life creates the potential for ethical dilemmas in the palliative care management of terminal patients in need of continuous pain management. We present the case of an end-stage patient with rectal cancer who required a continuous residential narcotic infusion of fentanyl for pain control due to metastatic disease. His functional status was such that he had poor oral intake and ability to perform other activities of daily living, but was able to live at home with health agency nursing care. The patient presented to this institution with a highly suspect history of having lost his fentanyl infusion in a residential accident and asking for a refill to continue home therapy. The treating physicians had concerns of diversion of the infusion medication by caregivers and were reluctant to continue the therapeutic relationship with the patient. This case exemplifies the tension that can exist between wanting to continue with palliative care management of an end-stage patient and the fear of providers when confronted by evidence of potential diversion of opioid analgesic medications. We elucidate how an ethical framework based on a combination of virtue and narrative/relationship theories with reference to proportionality can guide physicians to a pragmatic resolution of these difficult situations.