The role of ethicists in pediatric hematology/oncology: Current status and future needs.

As pediatric hematology/oncology (PHO) becomes more complex and sub-subspecialized, dedicated PHO ethicists have emerged as sub-subspecialists focused on addressing ethical issues encountered in clinical and research practices. PHO physicians and other clinicians with advanced training in bioethics contribute to the field through ethics research, education, and ethics consultation services. Furthermore, there exists a newer generation of PHO trainees interested in bioethics. This review details the experiences of current PHO ethicists, providing a blueprint for future educational, research and service activities to strengthen the trajectory of the burgeoning sub-subspecialty of PHO ethics. Creating an American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) ethics Special Interest Group, enhancing clinical ethics education for pediatric hematologists/oncologists (PHOs), developing multi-institutional research collaborations, and increasing attention to ethical issues germane to nonmalignant hematology will serve the interests of the entire field of PHO, enhancing the care of PHO patients and careers of PHOs.

Navigating Informed Consent and Patient Safety in Surgery: Lessons for Medical Students and Junior Trainees.

AbstractIn the operating room, patient safety is of paramount importance. Medical students and junior trainees, despite their primary role as students, may play active roles in assessing patient safety and reporting suspected errors. Active consent is one layer of patient safety that is continuously assessed by several team members. This article examines an instance where patient consent may have been violated. Through the lens of trainee and senior perspectives, we discuss the ethical principles at stake and provide recommendations for medical student and junior trainee involvement in patient care when an error is suspected.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Informed Consent, and Rescue: What Provides Moral Justification for the Provision of CPR?

Questions related to end-of-life decision making are common in clinical ethics and may be exceedingly difficult. Chief among these are the provision of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and do-not-resuscitate orders (DNRs). To better address such questions, clarity is needed on the values of medical ethics that underlie CPR and the relevant moral framework for making treatment decisions. An informed consent model is insufficient to provide justification for CPR. Instead, ethical justification for CPR rests on the rule of rescue and on substituted interest judgments. Patients' known wishes and values are relevant, particularly in protecting them from unwanted CPR. Clinicians should rescue patients with the means at their disposal, as a prima facie moral imperative, unless there are compelling reasons to refrain. We present a moral framework for making decisions regarding CPR and DNR.

Informed Consent in Pediatric Anesthesia: A Narrative Review.

Informed consent for pediatric anesthesia challenges practitioners to navigate complex ethical, medical, and legal ambiguities. A patient's status as a minor does not negate the importance of his or her participation in the decision-making process but, rather, necessitates a nuanced evaluation of age and development to involve the patient to an appropriate extent. Given the complexities involved with pediatric informed consent in anesthesia practice and research, it is important to understand the experience of key stakeholders involved. For this review, we searched Medline, the Cochrane database, PROSPERO, and Clinicaltrials.gov for studies involving pediatric anesthesia informed consent. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to select for studies that included issues related to informed consent as primary outcomes. The following data were extracted from included studies: title, authors, date of publication, study type, intervention, data collection method, participant type (ie, parent, pediatric patient, anesthesia provider), number of participants, pediatric patient age range, and primary outcome measures. Twenty-two articles were included for final review: studies of informed consent in pediatric anesthesia span many aspects of informed consent. Parental understanding has been studied most often (7/22 studies), followed by parental preferences (5/22 studies) and provider-related outcomes (5/22 studies) such as time spent interacting with patients, subjective reporting on amount of training related to informed consent, and provider satisfaction with the informed consent process. Outcomes pertaining to pediatric patients themselves constitute the smallest number of studies, including child anxiety (1/22), child understanding (1/22), and child refusal (1/22). Among the parties involved, parents have been most frequently identified as the subjects of these studies (2719/3805 subjects across all included studies, or 71% of all subjects). Pediatric patients are the least frequently involved subjects of studies that investigate informed consent in pediatric anesthesia (493/3805, or 13% of all subjects). Anesthesia providers and investigators have been study subjects (593/3805, or 16% of all subjects) for a range of topics including time spent interacting with patient, nature of informed consent conversation in relation to trainee status, satisfaction with informed consent process, and priorities for informed consent content. The aim of the present narrative review is to summarize the work that has been done on informed consent for pediatric anesthesia.

A Pilot Evaluation of Portfolios for Quality Attestation of Clinical Ethics Consultants.

Although clinical ethics consultation is a high-stakes endeavor with an increasing prominence in health care systems, progress in developing standards for quality is challenging. In this article, we describe the results of a pilot project utilizing portfolios as an evaluation tool. We found that this approach is feasible and resulted in a reasonably wide distribution of scores among the 23 submitted portfolios that we evaluated. We discuss limitations and implications of these results, and suggest that this is a significant step on the pathway to an eventual certification process for clinical ethics consultants.

Practical communication guidance to improve phase 1 informed consent conversations and decision-making in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: It can be difficult to explain pediatric phase 1 oncology trials to families of children with refractory cancer. Parents may misunderstand the information presented to them, and physicians may assume that certain topics are covered in the informed consent document and need not be discussed. Communication models can help to ensure effective discussions. METHODS: Suggestions for improving the informed consent process were first solicited from phase 1 study clinicians via questionnaire. Eight parents who had enrolled their child on a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial were recruited for an advisory group designed to assess the clinicians' suggestions and make additional recommendations for improving informed consent for pediatric phase 1 trials. RESULTS: A phase 1 communication model was designed to incorporate the suggestions of clinicians and families. It focused on educating parents/families about phase 1 trials at specific time points during a child's illness, but specifically at the point of disease recurrence. An informative phase 1 fact sheet that can be distributed to families was also presented. CONCLUSIONS: Families who will be offered information regarding phase 1 clinical trials can first receive a standardized fact sheet explaining the general purpose of these early-phase clinical trials. Parental understanding may be enhanced further when oncologists address key themes, beginning at the time of diagnosis and continuing through important decision points during the child's illness. This model should be prospectively evaluated.

Not just little adults: a review of 102 paediatric ethics consultations.

AIM: The American Academy of Pediatrics statement on institutional ethics committees highlights the importance of paediatric ethics consultation. However, little has been published on actual experience with ethics consultation in paediatrics. The objective of this study was to review and describe topics covered by a large retrospective sample of clinical ethics consultations in paediatric medicine. METHODS: We reviewed ethics consultations involving patients of <18 years of age from January 2005 to July 2013 at one institution. Descriptive statistics of the patient population, the reason for the ethics consultation and the consultant's perceived contribution to the case were generated. Subgroups of patients were compared based on demographic and clinical characteristics using Wilcoxon's rank sum tests, chi-square tests and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Most of the 102 eligible consultations originated from intensive care units and were requested by attending physicians. The most frequent topic leading to consultation was end-of-life issues. Both younger age and male sex were associated with consults for end-of-life issues (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: This analysis provides important information describing the type of consults requested in paediatric medicine, which is necessary given the movement towards professionalising clinical ethics consultation. Further empirical research is needed on ethics consultation in paediatrics.

Patient involvement in informed consent for pediatric phase I cancer research.

OBJECTIVE: To examine children's and adolescents' involvement in the informed consent conference for phase I cancer trials and test associations with patient age, ease of understanding, and pressure to participate. PROCEDURE: Participants included 61 patients aged 7 through 21 years who were offered participation in a phase I trial. Consent conferences were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded for communication between patients and physicians and between patients and parents. RESULTS: On the basis of word counts, the mean proportion of the consent conference in which the physician was talking to the patient was 36%; the vast majority (73%) of this communication consisted of giving information. Physician-patient communication increased with age, but overall levels of patient-to-physician communication were low (3%). After controlling for patient age, greater physician-to-patient communication was associated with greater ease of understanding. CONCLUSIONS: The focus on providing information in the context of informed consent may come at the expense of other communication exchanges that are important to patients, especially in the context of end-of-life decisions. Children and adolescents may benefit from the assent process when physicians direct more of their communication to them. Future research should identify the reasons for low patient communication during the consent conference and strategies to enhance their participation in decision making about phase I trial enrollment.

Organ shortage: the greatest challenge facing transplant medicine.

The success of organ transplantation as a treatment for end-stage organ disease has yielded a series of ethical quandaries originating from the issue of organ shortage. Scarcity of organs for transplantation necessitates formulation of just and fair allocation policies as well as ethically viable solutions to bridging the vast gap between organ supply and demand. The concept of "triage" provides a useful paradigm in which to contextualize the organ shortage issue. This entails subjugating the welfare of the individual patient for the benefit of the wider community as an ethically justified response to the challenge of scarcity.

Empirical bioethics research is a winner, but bioethics mission creep is a false alarm.

While we do not share Evans's view that social science research is needed to shield bioethics from competitive threat, we incorporate and engage in social science research to inform our knowledge base, our clinical practice, and our contributions to the ongoing development of the field.

Suggestions from adolescents, young adults, and parents for improving informed consent in phase 1 pediatric oncology trials.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent for a pediatric oncology phase 1 trial is a delicate process, and is made more complex by the difficulty of the information and the requirement for parental consent, and patient assent when applicable. This analysis identifies suggestions for improving the informed consent process received from parents and adolescent and young adult patients (aged 14 years-21 years) who had the option of participating in a phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. METHODS: A total of 57 parents and 20 patients completed interviews as part of a multisite, prospective, descriptive study. These transcribed interviews were studied using established content analysis methods. RESULTS: Parent and patient responses contained 220 suggestions and 54 suggestions, respectively. A total of 21 unique suggestions for improvement emerged in 3 main themes: 1) provision of more information; 2) structure and presentation of the informed consent process, and 3) suggestions for physicians conducting the process. Common suggestions included providing more specific information about the trial, allowing more time for decision-making, and using different methods to deliver information. CONCLUSIONS: Participants involved in the informed consent process for a phase 1 trial provided specific recommendations to research teams to enhance the process. Physician/investigators should be informed of these recommendations and develop and test interventions incorporating them.

Adolescent perspectives on phase I cancer research.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine adolescent patients' perspectives on their understanding and decision making about a pediatric phase I cancer study. PROCEDURE: Participants included adolescents ages 14-21 years with cancer (N = 20), all of whom attended a phase I study consent conference. Participants responded to closed- and open-ended questions on a verbally administered structured interview, which assessed aspects of understanding and decision making about the phase I study. RESULTS: All participants decided to enroll in the phase I study. The majority of participants understood that participation was voluntary, entailed risks, and that they could withdraw. Most also believed that participation in the phase I study would increase the length of their lives. The most frequent reasons for enrolling were positive clinical benefit, needing an option, impact on quality of life, and few side effects or fewer than those of current or past treatments. Eighty-five percent of participants reported that they themselves made the final decision about enrollment in the phase I study. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants hoped or expected that the phase I study would provide a direct benefit (increased survival time or cure) and reported that they themselves were the final decision-maker about enrollment. Clinicians may underestimate the role of adolescents, especially if they believe that parents typically make such decisions. Future research should assess the actual participation of children and adolescents during the informed consent process and explore the role of hope in their decision making about phase I studies.

Unrealistic optimism and the ethics of phase I cancer research.

One of the most pressing ethical challenges facing phase I cancer research centres is the process of informed consent. Historically, most scholarship has been devoted to redressing therapeutic misconception, that is, the conflation of the nature and goals of research with those of therapy. While therapeutic misconception continues to be a major ethical concern, recent scholarship has begun to recognise that the informed consent process is more complex than merely a transfer of information and therefore cannot be evaluated only according to how well an individual understands such information. Other components of decision-making operate independently of understanding and yet still may compromise the quality of informed consent. Notable among these components is unrealistic optimism, an event-specific belief that one has a better chance of receiving benefit than others similarly situated. In this article, we consider responses to interviews with parents who had recently completed an informed consent conference for enrolling their child in a phase I cancer clinical trial to examine how this influence manifests and how investigators might address it during informed consent.

Viewing Pediatric Food Oral Immunotherapy Through an Ethical Lens-A Narrative Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy remains a common problem and a lifelong condition for many children. In recent years, food allergy management has increasingly involved conversations about food oral immunotherapy (OIT). Although ethical considerations of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice implicitly inform these conversations, applying these principles can be complex, particularly in young children. Families of young children assume a role of surrogate decision-maker and must balance immediate risks with the hope of longer-term benefits. OBJECTIVE: To explore implementation of OIT in children through an ethical lens. METHODS: To evaluate OIT through an ethical lens, we conducted a literature search to explore currently published frameworks in this area. RESULTS: Evaluation of the harm principle, the basic interest principle, and the best interest principle of parental decision-making can be informative. Shared decision-making continues to be central to the process of engaging with patient-family units to individualize the best care, at the right time, and minimize decisional discord. Although OIT is well-positioned to promote health and well-being, challenges to equity, sustainability, and organizational support must be considered to improve access for appropriate patients. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas approaches to food OIT may be tailored to the individual context of each patient-family unit, ethical principles must guide decisions to initiate and continue therapy. Traditional ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice remain cornerstones when considering the ethical context of OIT.

Ethical considerations for post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Significant advances have been made in extracorporeal life support, which has resulted in the increased use of post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Retrospective studies have contributed to the ongoing evolution of selection criteria for post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Current indications include failure to wean from cardiopulmonary bypass, haemodynamic collapse, pulmonary hypertension, post-repair of hypoplastic left heart syndrome, or need for bridge to transplantation. Short- and mid-term results are improving. Ethical concerns still attend the process, however. Moral risks related to post-cardiotomy extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be encountered before, during, and after the open heart procedure. At each stage of the decision-making process, moral risks are encountered by many factors that may result in decisions that may be contrary to the best interests of the patient, parents, or use of shared societal resources. These moral risks centre around the selection process, informed consent, decision making in the operating room, and post-operative maintenance of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Consideration of such risks is affected by questions of haemodynamic stability, haematologic compromise, neurologic status, and family concerns. We conclude that thorough understanding of the relevant scientific literature, heightened awareness of moral risks, and incorporation of ethical tenets in clinical deliberation will guide the clinician to do the right thing.

Uterus Transplantation: Revisiting the Question of Deceased Donors versus Living Donors for Organ Procurement.

Uterus transplantation is a surgical treatment for women with congenital or acquired uterine factor infertility. While uterus transplantation is a life-enhancing transplant that is commonly categorized as a vascular composite allograft (e.g., face or hand), it is similar to many solid organ transplants (e.g., kidney) in that both living donors (LDs) and deceased donors (DDs) can be utilized for organ procurement. While many endpoints appear to be similar for LD and DD transplants (including graft survival, time to menses, livebirth rates), there are key medical, technical, ethical, and logistical differences between these modalities. Primary considerations in favor of a LD model include thorough screening of donors, enhanced logistics, and greater donor availability. The primary consideration in favor of a DD model is the lack of physical or psychological harm to a living donor. Other important factors, that may not clearly favor one approach over the other, are important to include in discussions of LD vs. DD models. We favor a stepwise approach to uterus transplantation, one in which programs first begin with DD procurement before attempting LD procurement to maximize successful organ recovery and to minimize potential harms to a living donor.