Unconditional access to non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) for adult-onset conditions: a defence.

Over the past decade, non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has been adopted into routine obstetric care to screen for fetal sex, trisomies 21, 18 and 13, sex chromosome aneuploidies and fetal sex determination. It is predicted that the scope of NIPT will be expanded in the future, including screening for adult-onset conditions (AOCs). Some ethicists have proposed that using NIPT to detect severe autosomal AOCs that cannot be prevented or treated, such as Huntington's disease, should only be offered to prospective parents who intend to terminate a pregnancy in the case of a positive result. We refer to this as the 'conditional access model' (CAM) for NIPT. We argue against CAM for NIPT to screen for Huntington's disease or any other AOC. Next, we present results from a study we conducted in Australia that explored NIPT users' attitudes regarding CAM in the context of NIPT for AOCs. We found that, despite overall support for NIPT for AOCs, most participants were not in favour of CAM for both preventable and non-preventable AOCs. Our findings are discussed in relation to our initial theoretical ethical theory and with other comparable empirical studies. We conclude that an 'unconditional access model' (UAM), which provides unrestricted access to NIPT for AOCs, is a morally preferable alternative that avoids both CAM's fundamental practical limitations and the limitations it places on parents' reproductive autonomy.

NIPT for adult-onset conditions: Australian NIPT users' views.

Noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) has become widely available in recent years. While initially used to screen for trisomies 21, 18, and 13, the test has expanded to include a range of other conditions and will likely expand further. This paper addresses the ethical issues that arise from one particularly controversial potential use of NIPT: screening for adult-onset conditions (AOCs). We report data from our quantitative survey of Australian NIPT users' views on the ethical issues raised by NIPT for AOCs. The survey ascertained support for NIPT for several traits and conditions including AOCs. Participants were then asked about their level of concern around implications of screening for AOCs for the future child and parent(s). Descriptive and comparative data analyses were conducted. In total, 109 respondents were included in data analysis. The majority of respondents expressed support for NIPT screening for preventable (70.9%) and nonpreventable AOCs (80.8%). Most respondents indicated concern around potential harmful impacts associated with NIPT for AOCs, including the psychological impact on the future child and on the parent(s). Despite this, the majority of participants thought that continuation of a pregnancy known to be predisposed to an AOC is ethically acceptable. The implications of these data are critically discussed and used to inform the normative claim that prospective parents should be given access to NIPT for AOCs. The study contributes to a body of research debating the ethical acceptability and regulation of various applications of NIPT as screening panels expand.

Ethical challenges faced by healthcare workers in pediatric oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study examined ethical challenges reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in a large Australian pediatric oncology center during a period of strict COVID-19 restrictions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 HCPs who provided pediatric cancer care during the pandemic in 2020, during strict lockdown periods. Interviews examined the difficulties they faced, as well as their own ethical evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 policies on oncology care. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis and thematic analysis. RESULTS: HCPs faced several challenges, primarily originating from hospital restrictions, which led to changes in usual clinical practices. These challenges included delivering care with personal protective equipment (PPE), the impact of a one-parent visitation policy, changes in psychosocial and allied health services, and COVID-19 swabbing policies. Overall, there was consensus from participants that hospital restrictions were justified and, while difficult, HCPs simply had to provide the best care possible given the circumstances. However, participants described decreased capacity to deliver holistic patient care and, in some instances, a tendency to avoid ethical reflection. Lastly, there was a consistent theme of shame and sense of responsibility underlying some participants' anxiety around inadvertently transmitting COVID-19 to immunocompromised patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that many staff felt unease at the disruptions in patient care due to COVID-19 restrictions. Some HCPs indicated a degree of moral distress, with a possibility of moral injury among some HCPs. A focus on ethical recovery could assist in preventing any ongoing difficulties among HCPs because of their experiences.

Parent perceptions of pediatric oncology care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An Australian study.

BACKGROUND: We examined parents' perceptions of their child's oncology care during a period of significant COVID-19 restrictions in Australia. METHODS: Parents of children, 0-18 years, receiving hospital-based cancer treatment, completed a survey examining their COVID-19 exposure and impact, information and knowledge, and perception of their child's medical care. Recruitment occurred between October and November 2020. RESULTS: Eighty-four parents (95% mothers) completed the survey. Sixty-seven percent of patients were diagnosed pre-COVID-19. The majority of parents (76%) reported negative impacts of COVID-19 on family life, including parenting and emotional well-being despite exposure to COVID-19 cases being very low (4%). Family functioning and parent birthplace were associated with COVID-19 impact and distress. Parents perceived the hospital as a safe place during the pandemic. Very few parents reported delaying presentation to the emergency department (12%). The majority identified no change (69%) or delay (71%) in their child's treatment delivery. Over 90% of parents were confident that COVID-19 did not impact medical decision-making. They felt confident in their COVID-19 knowledge and sought information from trusted sources. Parents reported a positive relationship with their child's care team (93%); however, access to some support services was reduced. CONCLUSION: Understanding patient and family experiences of pediatric oncology care across international contexts during the pandemic is important to inform present and future health care responses. In the Australian context of low infection rates and strict community restrictions, parents perceived their child's oncology care to be relatively unaffected. However, findings indicate that family well-being was impacted, which warrants further investigation.

Parental adjustment following their child's completion of acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment.

BACKGROUND: Few studies haveexamined parent and family adaptation in the early period following the end of childhood cancer treatment. We examined parent adjustment at the end of their child's treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). METHODS: Parents of childhood cancer survivors (CCS), who were 3 months post-ALL treatment, and parents of typically developing children completed measures of psychological and family functioning. Parents of CCS also completed distress and posttraumatic stress symptom (PTSS) questionnaires related to their child's cancer experience. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine parents were recruited: 77 parents of CCS and 52 comparison parents. Overall mean psychological symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, and family functioning were within normal limits for both groups. Parents of CCS endorsed higher scores for stress, depression, and family problems; however, mean scores for emotional distress were low for both groups, in particular the comparison group. Parents of CCS endorsed low rates of PTSS. Fifty-one percent of parents of CCS scored above the distress thermometer (DT-P) clinical cutoff (>4), with items elevated across all six DT-P domains. However, most parents did not indicate a wish to speak to a health professional about their symptoms. CONCLUSION: Specialist psychosocial intervention may be indicated for only a subset of parents at the end of treatment. As per psychosocial standards of care, effective screening at this timepoint is warranted. Further examination of appropriate timing of psychosocial information and support services that are tailored to parents' circumstances is needed. eHealth approaches may be appropriate.