MAiD as a case study in evidence for policy making: An account of the CCA assessment on medical assistance in dying.

In December 2016, the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) was asked by the Government of Canada to undertake an assessment on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), following from Parliament's passage of Bill C-14: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts. The CCA was asked to undertake an assessment of the state of knowledge on three topics that Parliament excluded from C-14: requests for MAiD by mature minors, advance requests for MAiD, and requests for MAiD where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition. Here, we describe the way that the CCA responded to the request from the Government of Canada using a multidisciplinary expert panel approach, how different forms of evidence were identified and used, the impact of the CCA assessment as part of the broader conversation occurring in Canada, and its implications for health leaders.

Don Chalmers: His Contributions to Legal Research and Education, Health Law, and Research Ethics, Locally and Globally.

Distinguished Professor Don Chalmers retired from the Law Faculty at the University of Tasmania on Friday 10 July 2020. This article is dedicated to Don, providing a brief account and acknowledgment of his fine contributions to legal research and education and law reform, particularly in the field of health and medical law, research ethics and policy reform. He has been an excellent colleague, mentor, leader, teacher, and researcher. He deserves to enjoy a long and rewarding retirement, though we, and many others, will not allow him to slip entirely out of the limelight. Don is still much needed, and still has so much to give in our ongoing quest to ensure that legal, research ethics and policy responses are adequate in reaping the benefits and responding to the challenges of biomedical advances.

Industry Support of Medical Research: Important Opportunity or Treacherous Pitfall?

Pharmaceutical and device manufacturers fund more than half of the medical research in the U.S. Research funding by for-profit companies has increased over the past 20 years, while federal funding has declined. Research funding from for-profit medical companies is seen as tainted by many academicians because of potential biases and prior misbehavior by both investigators and companies. Yet NIH is encouraging partnerships between the public and private sectors to enhance scientific discovery. There are instances, such as methods for improving drug adherence and post-marketing drug surveillance, where the interests of academician researchers and industry could be aligned. We provide examples of ethically performed industry-funded research and a set of principles and benchmarks for ethically credible academic-industry partnerships that could allow academic researchers, for-profit companies, and the public to benefit.

Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States.

Childhood immunization involves a balance between parents' autonomy in deciding whether to immunize their children and the benefits to public health from mandating vaccines. Ethical concerns about pediatric vaccination span several public health domains, including those of policymakers, clinicians, and other professionals. In light of ongoing developments and debates, we discuss several key ethical issues concerning childhood immunization in the United States and describe how they affect policy development and clinical practice. We focus on ethical considerations pertaining to herd immunity as a community good, vaccine communication, dismissal of vaccine-refusing families from practice, and vaccine mandates. Clinicians and policymakers need to consider the nature and timing of vaccine-related discussions and invoke deliberative approaches to policy-making.

To research (or not) that is the question: ethical issues in research when medical care is disrupted by political action: a case study from Eldoret, Kenya.

While considerable attention has been focused on understanding the myriad of ethical analysis in international research in low and middle income countries, new issues always arise that have not been anticipated in guidelines or studied extensively. The disruption of medical care arising as a direct result of political actions, including strikes, postelection violence and related activities, is one such issue that leaves physician-researchers struggling to manage often conflicting professional responsibilities. This paper discusses the ethical conflicts that arise for physician-researchers, particularly when disruption threatens the completion of a study or completion is possible but at the expense of not addressing unmet medical needs of patients. We review three pragmatic strategies and the ethical issues arising from each: not starting research, stopping research that has already started, and continuing research already initiated. We argue that during episodes of medical care disruption, research that has been started can be continued only if the ethical standards imposed at the beginning of the study can continue to be met; however, studies that have been approved but not yet started should not begin until the disruption has ended and ethical standards can again be assured.

Protecting Ideas: Ethical and Legal Considerations When a Grant's Principal Investigator Changes.

Ethical issues related the responsible conduct of research involve questions concerning the rights and obligations of investigators to propose, design, implement, and publish research. When a principal investigator (PI) transfers institutions during a grant cycle, financial and recognition issues need to be addressed to preserve all parties' obligations and best interests in a mutually beneficial way. Although grants often transfer with the PI, sometimes they do not. Maintaining a grant at an institution after the PI leaves does not negate the grantee institution's obligation to recognize the PI's original ideas, contributions, and potential rights to some forms of expression and compensation. Issues include maintaining a role for the PI in determining how to take credit for, share and publish results that involve his or her original ideas. Ascribing proper credit can become a thorny issue. This paper provides a framework for addressing situations and disagreements that may occur when a new PI continues the work after the original PI transfers. Included are suggestions for proactively developing institutional mechanisms that address such issues. Considerations include how to develop solutions that comply with the responsible conduct of research, equitably resolve claims regarding reporting of results, and avoid the possibility of plagiarism.

How bioethics principles can aid design of electronic health records to accommodate patient granular control.

Ethics should guide the design of electronic health records (EHR), and recognized principles of bioethics can play an important role. This approach was recently adopted by a team of informaticists who are designing and testing a system where patients exert granular control over who views their personal health information. While this method of building ethics in from the start of the design process has significant benefits, questions remain about how useful the application of bioethics principles can be in this process, especially when principles conflict. For instance, while the ethical principle of respect for autonomy supports a robust system of granular control, the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence counsel restraint due to the danger of patients being harmed by restrictions on provider access to data. Conflict between principles has long been recognized by ethicists and has even motivated attacks on approaches that state and apply principles. In this paper, we show how using ethical principles can help in the design of EHRs by first explaining how ethical principles can and should be used generally, and then by discussing how attention to details in specific cases can show that the tension between principles is not as bad as it initially appeared. We conclude by suggesting ways in which the application of these (and other) principles can add value to the ongoing discussion of patient involvement in their health care. This is a new approach to linking principles to informatics design that we expect will stimulate further interest.

Designing a patient-centered user interface for access decisions about EHR data: implications from patient interviews.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records change the landscape of patient data sharing and privacy by increasing the amount of information collected and stored and the number of potential recipients. Patients desire granular control over who receives what information in their electronic health record (EHR), but there are no current patient interfaces that allow them to record their preferences for EHR access. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to derive the user needs of patients regarding the design of a user interface that records patients' individual choices about who can access data in their EHRs. DESIGN: We used semi-structured interviews. SETTING: The study was conducted in Central Indiana. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty patients with data stored in an EHR, the majority of whom (70 %) had highly sensitive health EHR data, were included in the study. APPROACH: We conducted a thematic and quantitative analysis of transcribed interview data. KEY RESULTS: Patients rarely knew what data were in their EHRs, but would have liked to know. They also wanted to be able to control who could access what information in their EHR and wanted to be notified when their data we re accessed. CONCLUSIONS: We derived six implications for the design of a patient-centered tool to allow individual choice in the disclosure of EHR: easy patient access to their EHRs; an overview of current EHR sharing permissions; granular, hierarchical control over EHR access; EHR access controls based on dates; contextual privacy controls; and notification when their EHRs are accessed.

Patient preferences in controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have measured individuals' willingness to share personal information stored in electronic health records (EHRs) with health care providers, but none has measured preferences among patients when they are allowed to determine the parameters of provider access. METHODS: Patients were given the ability to control access by doctors, nurses, and other staff in a primary care clinic to personal information stored in an EHR. Patients could restrict access to all personal data or to specific types of sensitive information, and could restrict access for a specific time period. Patients also completed a survey regarding their understanding of and opinions regarding the process. RESULTS: Of 139 eligible patients who were approached, 105 (75.5 %) were enrolled, and preferences were collected from all 105 (100 %). Sixty patients (57 %) did not restrict access for any providers. Of the 45 patients (43 %) who chose to limit the access of at least one provider, 36 restricted access only to all personal information in the EHR, while nine restricted access of some providers to a subset of the their personal information. Thirty-four (32.3 %) patients blocked access to all personal information by all doctors, nurses, and/or other staff, 26 (24.8 %) blocked access by all doctors and/or nurses, and five (4.8 %) denied access to all doctors, nurses, and staff. CONCLUSIONS: A significant minority of patients chose to restrict access by their primary care providers to personal information contained in an EHR, and few chose to restrict access to specific types of information. More research is needed to identify patient goals and understanding of the implications when facing decisions of this sort, and to identify the impact of patient education regarding information contained in EHRs and their use in the clinical care setting.

Provider responses to patients controlling access to their electronic health records: a prospective cohort study in primary care.

INTRODUCTION: Applying Fair Information Practice principles to electronic health records (EHRs) requires allowing patient control over who views their data. METHODS: We designed a program that captures patients' preferences for provider access to an urban health system's EHR. Patients could allow or restrict providers' access to all data (diagnoses, medications, test results, reports, etc.) or only highly sensitive data (sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDS, drugs/alcohol, mental or reproductive health). Except for information in free-text reports, we redacted EHR data shown to providers according to patients' preferences. Providers could "break the glass" to display redacted information. We prospectively studied this system in one primary care clinic, noting redactions and when users "broke the glass," and surveyed providers about their experiences and opinions. RESULTS: Eight of nine eligible clinic physicians and all 23 clinic staff participated. All 105 patients who enrolled completed the preference program. Providers did not know which of their patients were enrolled, nor their preferences for accessing their EHRs. During the 6-month prospective study, 92 study patients (88 %) returned 261 times, during which providers viewed their EHRs 126 times (48 %). Providers "broke the glass" 102 times, 92 times for patients not in the study and ten times for six returning study patients, all of whom had restricted EHR access. Providers "broke the glass" for six (14 %) of 43 returning study patients with redacted data vs. zero among 49 study patients without redactions (p = 0.01). Although 54 % of providers agreed that patients should have control over who sees their EHR information, 58 % believed restricting EHR access could harm provider-patient relationships and 71 % felt quality of care would suffer. CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently preferred restricting provider access to their EHRs. Providers infrequently overrode patients' preferences to view hidden data. Providers believed that restricting EHR access would adversely impact patient care. Applying Fair Information Practice principles to EHRs will require balancing patient preferences, providers' needs, and health care quality.

Precision Medicine-Are We There Yet? A Narrative Review of Precision Medicine's Applicability in Primary Care.

Precision medicine (PM), also termed stratified, individualised, targeted, or personalised medicine, embraces a rapidly expanding area of research, knowledge, and practice. It brings together two emerging health technologies to deliver better individualised care: the many "-omics" arising from increased capacity to understand the human genome and "big data" and data analytics, including artificial intelligence (AI). PM has the potential to transform an individual's health, moving from population-based disease prevention to more personalised management. There is however a tension between the two, with a real risk that this will exacerbate health inequalities and divert funds and attention from basic healthcare requirements leading to worse health outcomes for many. All areas of medicine should consider how this will affect their practice, with PM now strongly encouraged and supported by government initiatives and research funding. In this review, we discuss examples of PM in current practice and its emerging applications in primary care, such as clinical prediction tools that incorporate genomic markers and pharmacogenomic testing. We look towards potential future applications and consider some key questions for PM, including evidence of its real-world impact, its affordability, the risk of exacerbating health inequalities, and the computational and storage challenges of applying PM technologies at scale.

Uterine transplantation--a real possibility? The Indianapolis consensus.

A group of experts gathered in Indianapolis in December 2011 to address lingering concerns related to uterus transplantation (UTn). They represent a multi-national group of four research teams who have worked for over 15 years on bringing UTn to reality for patients. Presented here are a set of parameters that must be considered in order for UTn to become an acceptable procedure in the human setting. UTn has been proposed as a potential solution to absolute uterine factor infertility (AUFI). Causes of AUFI include congenital uterine factors (i.e. absence or malformation) or acquired uterine factors (e.g. hysterectomy for uncontrollable hemorrhage) rendering a woman 'unconditionally infertile'. Current estimates are that in the USA, up to 7 million women with AUFI may be appropriate candidates for UTn. As a result of a first human attempt in 2000, investigators have responded with a plethora of publications demonstrating successful UTn attempts, including pregnancies, in various autogeneic, syngeneic and allogeneic animal models. Before UTn can become an accepted procedure, it must satisfy defined criteria for any surgical innovation, i.e. research background, field strength and institutional stability. Equally important, UTn must satisfy accepted bioethical principles (respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice) and their application (informed consent, appropriate assessment of risk and benefit and fair selection of individuals). Furthermore, we believe that a defined number of transplants should not be exceeded worldwide without a successful term delivery, to minimize proceeding in futility using current techniques. Even if UTns were to become relatively common, the following research objectives should be continuously pursued: (i) additional pregnancies in a variety of large animal/primate models (to search for unanticipated consequences), (ii) continuous assessment of women diagnosed with AUFI regarding UTn, (iii) continuous assessment using 'borrowed' psychological tools from transplant centers, adoption agencies and assisted reproductive technology centers with potential recipients and (iv) continuous careful ethical reflection, assessment and approval.

Taking stock of the ethical foundations of international health research: pragmatic lessons from the IU-Moi Academic Research Ethics Partnership.

It is a sine qua non that research and health care provided in international settings raise profound ethical questions when different cultural and political values are implicated. Yet ironically, as international health research expands and as research on ethical issues in international health research broadens and deepens, we appear to have moved away from discussing the moral foundations of these activities. For international health research to thrive and lead to the kind of benefits it is capable of, it is helpful to occasionally revisit the foundational premises that justify the enterprise as a whole. We draw on the experience of the Indiana University-Moi University Academic Research Ethics Partnership, an innovative bioethics training program co-located in Indianapolis and Eldoret, Kenya to highlight the changing nature of ethical issues in international health research and the ongoing practical challenges.

Privacy protectionism and health information: is there any redress for harms to health?

Health information collected by governments can be a valuable resource for researchers seeking to improve diagnostics, treatments and public health outcomes. Responsible use requires close attention to privacy concerns and to the ethical acceptability of using personal health information without explicit consent. Less well appreciated are the legal and ethical issues that are implicated when privacy protection is extended to the point where the potential benefits to the public from research are lost. Balancing these issues is a delicate matter for data custodians. This article examines the legal, ethical and structural context in which data custodians make decisions about the release of data for research. It considers the impact of those decisions on individuals. While there is strong protection against risks to privacy and multiple avenues of redress, there is no redress where harms result from a failure to release data for research.

Ethically cleared to launch?

Rules are needed for human research in commercial spaceflight.

Biobanking and public health: is a human rights approach the tie that binds?

Ethical principles guiding public health and genomic medicine are often at odds: whereas public health practice adopts collectivist principles that emphasize population-based benefits, recent advances in genomic and personalized medicine are grounded in an individualist ethic that privileges informed consent, and the balancing of individual risk and benefit. Indeed, the attraction of personalized medicine is the promise it holds out to help individuals get the "right medicine for the right problem at the right time." Research biobanks are an effective tool in the genomic medicine toolbox. Biobanking in public health presents a unique case study to unpack some of these issues in more detail. For example, there is a long history of using banked tissue obtained under clinical diagnostic conditions for later public health uses. But despite the collectivist approach of public health, the principles applied to the ethical challenges of biobanking (e.g. informed consent, autonomy, privacy) remain individualist. We demonstrate the value of using human rights as a public health ethics framework to address this tension in biobanking by applying it to two illustrative cases.

Extending the reach of public health genomics: what should be the agenda for public health in an era of genome-based and "personalized" medicine?

The decade following the completion of the Human Genome Project has been marked by divergent claims about the utility of genomics for improving population health. On the one hand, genomics is viewed as the harbinger of a brave new world in which novel treatments rectify known causes of disease. On the other hand, genomics may have little practical relevance to the principal causes or remedies of diseases which are predominantly social or environmental in origin, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Those supportive of a role for public health genomics argue that increasing knowledge of genomics and molecular pathology could unlock effective diagnostic techniques and treatments, and better target public health interventions. To resolve some of these tensions, an international multidisciplinary meeting was held in May 2010 in Ickworth, United Kingdom, with the aim of setting an agenda for the development of public health in an era of genome-based and "personalized" medicine. A number of key themes emerged, suggesting a need to reconfigure both the focus for existing genomic research and the stage at which funding is targeted, so that priority is given to areas of greatest potential health impact and that translation from basic science to implementation is given greater emphasis. To support these developments, there should be an immediate, sustained and systematic effort to provide an evidence base. These deliberations formed the basis for six key recommendations, which could guide the practice of public health in an era of genomics and personalized medicine.

Reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society Report on Heritable Human Genome Editing.

In September 2020, a detailed report on Heritable Human Genome Editing was published. The report offers a translational pathway for the limited approval of germline editing under limited circumstances and assuming various criteria have been met. In this perspective, some three dozen experts from the fields of genome editing, medicine, bioethics, law, and related fields offer their candid reactions to the National Academies/Royal Society report, highlighting areas of support, omissions, disagreements, and priorities moving forward.