Decision-Making for Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria.

Legislation banning gender-affirming medical care (GAMC) for minors is inconsistent with the Consensus Recommendations for Pediatric Decision-Making (Salter et al. 2023). Gender dysphoria is a medical condition, and GAMC promotes adolescents' health interests. The evidence for GAMC is comparable to the evidence for other types of pediatric medical care. Parents are permitted to consent for similar risks in the treatment of other conditions. Evaluation of the potential benefits, risks, and treatment alternatives is contingent on individual patients' clinical conditions and adolescents' and their parents' values and preferences. Such decisions are within the scope of parental discretion and should be made through shared decision-making with health-care providers. Parents' declining GAMC does not inherently create a significant risk of serious imminent harm required to justify state intervention. Usurping parental discretion for GAMC is unjust: it treats this medical care differently than other comparable types of medical care without sufficient justification.

Experiences of reproductive genetic counselors with abortion regulations in Ohio.

Since 2010, Ohio legislators have passed more than 15 legislative changes related to abortion and abortion providers, and nine procedural abortion clinics have closed. We investigated reproductive genetic counselors' perceptions, attitudes and self-reported practices regarding Ohio's current and proposed abortion regulations. We conducted five focus groups and two telephone interviews in 2019-2020, with a total of 19 reproductive genetic counselors. Participants discussed difficulties keeping current on abortion legislation and clinics' and hospitals' policies, resulting in anticipatory anxiety and leading to additional work to discuss the laws with patients. Participants articulated that practices of reproductive genetic counseling-and patient advocacy-are impeded by the legislation. Genetic counselors perceive negative impacts on patients' autonomy, particularly reflective of healthcare disparities of marginalized groups, which may contribute to frustration and anger. Ultimately, the mental and emotional burden on genetic counselors created by abortion legislation contributes to compassion fatigue and burnout. Our findings show that Ohio's abortion regulations negatively impact reproductive genetic counselors and their relationships with their patients. Repealing existing abortion regulations and preventing future restrictive legislation may ameliorate the negative effects of regulations on reproductive genetic counselors and their patients. In the event that these laws remain, innovative communication tools and proactive professional society advocacy are potential means to mitigate the negative impact on reproductive genetic counselors.

Obtaining consensus regarding international transplantation continues to be difficult for pediatric centers in the United States.

Organ transplant is life-saving and any given organ may be valuable to a multitude of potential recipients. An allocation system must be used to reconcile the difference between supply and demand, and this system must take into account the impact that accepting international patients may have on the local system. The principles for allocation must be clear, equitable, provide utility and must be monitored so as to maintain public trust. The impact of the system on metrics deemed to be critical must be measured. Finally, strategies must take into account the local culture, size of the region to be supported, the number and experience of transplant centers, and the resources of the healthcare delivery system. Our focus is on the United States, recognizing that strategies and challenges may vary across countries.

Incentives in Pediatric Research in Developing Countries: When Are They Too Much?

When incentives are offered to parents and their children to partake in research, there are concerns that parents may be unduly influenced by the incentives, and the children may be exploited. We present a case from a low- and middle-income country and consider the ethical issues that arise when the children are asked to participate in a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of a nutritional supplement on growth. The first commenter, from Malaysia, notes that their residents might not share Americans' expectations regarding children's role in the consent process from a cultural perspective, which may alter the analysis of the concerns. The authors of the second commentary emphasize the use of incentives that benefit the child participant rather than their parent or are provided directly to the child participant to address the concerns. The third commentator discusses the importance of minimizing the study's risks and balancing the benefits and the risks, which attenuates the concerns.

Requests for Directed Blood Donations.

This Ethics Rounds presents a request for directed blood donation. Two parents feel helpless in the setting of their daughter's new leukemia diagnosis and want to directly help their child by providing their own blood for a transfusion. They express hesitancy about trusting the safety of a stranger's blood. Commentators assess this case in the setting of blood as a scarce community resource during a national blood shortage. Commentators review the child's best interest, future risks, and harm-benefit considerations. Commentators recognize the professional integrity, humility, and courage of the physician to admit his own lack of knowledge on the subject and to seek help rather than claim directed donation is not possible without further investigation into options. Shared ideals such as altruism, trust, equity, volunteerism, and solidarity are recognized as values relevant to sustainment of a community blood supply. Pediatric hematologists, a blood bank director, transfusion medicine specialists, and an ethicist conclude that directed donation is only justified by lower risks to the recipient in particular circumstances.

Pediatric Decision Making: Consensus Recommendations.

Despite apparent disagreement in the scholarly literature on standards of pediatric decision making, a recognition that similar norms underpin many of the dominant frameworks motivated a June 2022 symposium "Best Interests and Beyond: Standards of Decision Making in Pediatrics" in St Louis, MO. Over the course of this 3-day symposium, 17 expert scholars (see author list) deliberated on the question "In the context of US pediatric care, what moral precepts ought to guide parents and clinicians in medical decision making for children?" The symposium and subsequent discussion generated 6 consensus recommendations for pediatric decision making, constructed with the primary goals of accessibility, teachability, and feasibility for practicing clinicians, parents, and legal guardians. In this article, we summarize these recommendations, including their justification, limitations, and remaining concerns.

Should Tactile Defensiveness Exclude a Life-Sustaining Intervention in an Adolescent With Autism?

This Ethics Rounds considers the benefits and burdens of a potentially temporary tracheostomy in an adolescent with autism and severe tactile defensiveness.

Balancing Protection and Progress in Pediatric Palliative Care Research: Stakeholder Perspectives.

Pediatric palliative care, including end-of-life care, remains a relatively new area of interdisciplinary clinical practice and research. Improving the multifaceted and complex care of children and their families involves research that (1) documents the experiences of children with serious illness, their families, and clinicians; (2) evaluates relationships between contextual factors and health outcomes; and (3) establishes a stronger foundation for child- and family-focused interventions to improve care. Partnership among stakeholders in family-focused research begins from design through conduct of the study. This partnership is the foundation of a dynamic research process that illuminates critical perspectives. We present a hypothetical pediatric palliative study; a qualitative descriptive study of the perspectives of adolescents and young adults with life-limiting illnesses and their parents after a discussion about an end-of-life decision. Pediatric palliative care researchers, institutional review board leaders, and the parent of a child who died comment on how to balance the obligations to improve clinical care and to protect participants in research. Their recommendations include recruiting a wide range of participants, differentiating emotional responses from harm, approaching potential participants as individuals, and seeking feedback from family advisory boards and designated reviewers with content expertise.

Microaggressions: Privileged Observers' Duty to Act and What They Can Do.

Racism and sexism that manifest as microaggressions are commonly experienced by members of minoritized groups. These actions and comments erode their subjects' vitality and sense of belonging. Individuals from minoritized groups are often left in a quandary, weighing the potential benefits and risks of addressing the comments. Placing the burden to interrupt bias on our marginalized colleagues is unjust. In part, it is inappropriate to expect them to dismantle a system that they did not create. It is essential for individuals with privilege who observe microaggressions to address the speaker and support their colleagues. In this Ethics Rounds, we present 2 cases in which individuals from minoritized groups experience racism and sexism that manifest as microaggressions. The first case involves a Black female physician making recommendations in a business meeting being characterized by a male colleague as emotional. The commentators analyze how both gender and race constrain the range of acceptable emotions one may exhibit and the harm that this causes. The second case involves a Black intern being identified by a parent as a custodian. Commentators describe how such microaggressions can harm trainees' performance and sense of belonging. In both cases, observers did nothing or only spoke to the subject in private. Commentators provide specific guidance regarding actions that bystanders can take to become upstanders and how they can decenter themselves and their discomfort and leverage their privilege to interrupt microaggressions. By becoming upstanders, individuals can remove the disproportionate responsibility for addressing microaggressions from marginalized colleagues.