Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 25
Filter
Add more filters

Country/Region as subject
Publication year range
1.
Nicotine Tob Res ; 22(9): 1553-1559, 2020 08 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31848622

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of morbidity and mortality of the mother and child. The inability of the unborn child to protect itself, raises the social and academic responsibility to protect the child from the harmful effects of smoking. Interventions including rewards (incentives) for lifestyle changes are an upcoming trend and can encourage women to quit smoking. However, these incentives can, as we will argue, also have negative consequences, for example the restriction of personal autonomy and encouragement of smoking to become eligible for participation. To prevent these negative consequences, we developed an ethical framework that enables to assess and address unwanted consequences of incentive-based interventions whereby moral permissibility can be evaluated. AIMS AND METHODS: The possible adverse consequences of incentives were identified through an extensive literature search. Subsequently, we developed ethical criteria to identify these consequences based on the biomedical ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress. RESULTS: Our framework consists of 12 criteria. These criteria concern (1) effectiveness, (2) support of a healthy lifestyle, (3) motivational for the target population, (4) stimulating unhealthy behavior, (5) negative attitudes, (6) personal autonomy, (7) intrinsic motivation, (8) privacy, (9) fairness, (10) allocation of incentives, (11) cost-effectiveness, and (12) health inequity. Based on these criteria, the moral permissibility of potential interventions can be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives for smoking cessation are a response to the responsibility to protect the unborn child. But these interventions might have possible adverse effects. This ethical framework aims to identify and address ethical pitfalls in order to avoid these adverse effects. IMPLICATIONS: Although various interventions to promote smoking cessation during pregnancy exist, many women still smoke during pregnancy. Interventions using incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy are a promising and upcoming trend but can have unwanted consequences. This ethical framework helps to identify and address ethical pitfalls in order to avoid these adverse effects.It can be a practical tool in the development and evaluation of these interventions and in evaluating the moral permissibility of interventions using incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy.


Subject(s)
Health Promotion/ethics , Mothers/psychology , Motivation , Smoking Cessation/methods , Smoking Cessation/psychology , Smoking/therapy , Adult , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Reward , Smoking/psychology
2.
J Med Ethics ; 46(3): 194-198, 2020 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31527142

ABSTRACT

The introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in healthcare systems around the world offers an opportunity to reconsider funding policies for prenatal screening. In some countries with universal access healthcare systems, pregnant women and their partners are asked to (co)pay for NIPT. In this paper, we discuss two important rationales for charging women for NIPT: (1) to prevent increased uptake of NIPT and (2) to promote informed choice. First, given the aim of prenatal screening (reproductive autonomy), high or low uptake rates are not intrinsically desirable or undesirable. Using funding policies to negatively affect uptake, however, is at odds with the aim of screening. Furthermore, copayment disproportionally affects those of lower socioeconomic status, which conflicts with justice requirements and impedes equal access to prenatal screening. Second, we argue that although payment models may influence pregnant women's choice behaviours and perceptions of the relevance of NIPT, the copayment requirement does not necessarily lead to better-informed choices. On the contrary, external (ie, financial) influences on women's personal choices for or against prenatal screening should ideally be avoided. To improve informed decision-making, healthcare systems should instead invest in adequate non-directive, value-focused pretest counselling. This paper concludes that requiring (substantial) copayments for NIPT in universal access healthcare systems fails to promote reproductive autonomy and is unfair.


Subject(s)
Pregnant Women , Prenatal Diagnosis , Female , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Mass Screening , Pregnancy , Social Class
3.
Bioethics ; 34(7): 671-678, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32621525

ABSTRACT

Informed consent is a key condition for prenatal screening programmes to reach their aim of promoting reproductive autonomy. Reaching this aim is currently being challenged with the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in first-trimester prenatal screening programmes: amongst others its procedural ease-it only requires a blood draw and reaches high levels of reliability-might hinder women's understanding that they should make a personal, informed decision about screening. We offer arguments for a renewed recognition and use of informed consent compared to informed choice, and for a focus on value-consistent choices and personalized informational preferences. We argue for a three-step counselling model in which three decision moments are distinguished and differently addressed: (1) professionals explore women's values concerning whether and why they wish to know whether their baby has a genetic disorder; (2) women receive layered medical-technical information and are asked to make a decision about screening; (3) during post-test counselling, women are supported in decision-making about the continuation or termination of their pregnancy. This model might also be applicable in other fields of genetic (pre-test) counselling, where techniques for expanding genome analysis and burdensome test-outcomes challenge counselling of patients.


Subject(s)
Counseling/ethics , Decision Making/ethics , Informed Consent/ethics , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing , Pregnant Women/psychology , Female , Humans , Pregnancy
4.
J Genet Couns ; 29(1): 112-121, 2020 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31710169

ABSTRACT

The noninvasive prenatal test (NIPT) as the first trimester prenatal screening (FTS) for trisomies 21, 18, and 13 is offered to all pregnant women in the Netherlands. NIPT using genome sequencing allows for an expansion of the scope of FTS and the introduction of NIPT gives rise to ethical and societal concerns about deliberated decision-making, pressure to engage in screening, and possible lack of equal access due to the financial contribution (€175) to NIPT. We explored the opinions and experiences of pregnant women, who were offered FTS, about these concerns, and the possibility of a broadened scope. Nineteen pregnant women representing a diversity of backgrounds were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. Eight women did not opt for prenatal screening while 11 did (NIPT = 4, combined test = 7). Women experienced a free choice to accept or decline prenatal screening, despite sometimes receiving advice from others. Prior to pretest counseling, some women had already deliberated about what an abnormal test result would mean to them. Others accepted or declined FTS without deliberation. The current Dutch policy of requiring a co-payment was acceptable to some, who believed that it functioned as a threshold to think carefully about FTS. Others were concerned that a financial threshold would lead to unequal access to screening. Finally, pregnant women found it difficult to formulate opinions on the scope of FTS, because of lack of knowledge. Life expectancy, severity, and treatability were considered important criteria for the inclusion of a condition in NIPT.


Subject(s)
Genetic Testing/economics , Prenatal Diagnosis/psychology , Reimbursement Mechanisms , Adult , Female , Humans , Netherlands , Pregnancy , Prenatal Diagnosis/economics , Social Class
5.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics ; 29(4): 542-556, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32892773

ABSTRACT

This interview study investigates the short- and long-term implications of incidental findings detected through brain imaging on research participants' lives and their surroundings. For this study, nine participants of the Rotterdam Scan Study with an incidental finding were approached and interviewed. When examining research participants' narratives on the impact of the disclosure of incidental findings, the authors identified five sets of tensions with regard to motivations for and expectations of research participation, preferences regarding disclosure, short- and long-term impacts and impacts on self and others. The paper shows: (1) that the impact of incidental findings may be greater than participants at first let on; (2) incidental findings can have significant effects on participants' social environment; and (3) participants may not feel prepared for disclosure even if incidental findings have been discussed during the informed consent process. The authors call for investigators to be aware of research participants' experiences and these short- and long-term impacts when designing suitable courses of action for the detection and management of incidental findings in research settings.


Subject(s)
Disclosure , Incidental Findings , Emotions , Humans , Informed Consent , Neuroimaging
6.
Crit Care ; 22(1): 306, 2018 11 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30446017

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the extent of the agreement on practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. METHODS: Investigators from 67 Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study centers completed several questionnaires (response rate: 99%). RESULTS: Regarding practices around brain death, we found agreement on the clinical evaluation (prerequisites and neurological assessment) for brain death determination (BDD) in 100% of the centers. However, ancillary tests were required for BDD in 64% of the centers. BDD for nondonor patients was deemed mandatory in 18% of the centers before withdrawing life-sustaining measures (LSM). Also, practices around postmortem organ donation varied. Organ donation after circulatory arrest was forbidden in 45% of the centers. When withdrawal of LSM was contemplated, in 67% of centers the patients with a ventricular drain in situ had this removed, either sometimes or all of the time. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed both agreement and some regional differences regarding practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation. We hope our results help quantify and understand potential differences, and provide impetus for current dialogs toward further harmonization of practices around brain death and postmortem organ donation.


Subject(s)
Brain Death , Tissue and Organ Procurement/methods , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/complications , Europe , Humans , Internationality , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tissue and Organ Procurement/legislation & jurisprudence , Trauma Centers/organization & administration
7.
J Med Ethics ; 44(9): 626-631, 2018 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29695408

ABSTRACT

In the debate surrounding the introduction of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in prenatal screening programmes, the concept of routinisation is often used to refer to concerns and potential negative consequences of the test. A literature analysis shows that routinisation has many different meanings, which can be distinguished in three major versions of the concept. Each of these versions comprises several inter-related fears and concerns regarding prenatal screening and particularly regarding NIPT in three areas: (1) informed choice, (2) freedom to choose and (3) consequences for people with a disability. Three of the strongest arguments raised under the flag of routinisation are assessed for their validity: the threat that NIPT poses to informed choice, the potential increase in uptake of first-trimester prenatal screening and its consequences for social pressure to participate in screening or terminate affected pregnancies, and the negative consequences for disabled people. These routinisation arguments lack empirical or normative ground. However, the results of this analysis do not imply that no attention should be paid to possible problems surrounding the introduction of NIPT. At least two problems remain and should be addressed: there should be an ongoing debate about the requirements of informed choice, particularly related to an expanded scope of prenatal screening. Also, reproductive autonomy can only be achieved when expecting parents' options are variegated, real and valuable, so that they can continue to choose whether or not to screen or to terminate a pregnancy.


Subject(s)
Decision Making/ethics , Personal Autonomy , Prenatal Diagnosis/ethics , Disabled Persons , Female , Genetic Testing/ethics , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Trimester, First , Terminology as Topic
8.
BMC Med Ethics ; 18(1): 10, 2017 Feb 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28166795

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As thousands of healthy research participants are being included in small and large imaging studies, it is essential that dilemmas raised by the detection of incidental findings are adequately handled. Current ethical guidance indicates that pathways for dealing with incidental findings should be in place, but does not specify what such pathways should look like. Building on an interview study of researchers' practices and perspectives, we identified key considerations for the set-up of pathways for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging research. METHODS: We conducted an interview study with a purposive sample of researchers (n = 20) at research facilities across the Netherlands. Based on a qualitative analysis of these interviews and on existing guidelines found in the literature, we developed a prototype ethical framework, which was critically assessed and fine-tuned during a two-day international expert meeting with bioethicists and representatives from large population-based imaging studies from the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and Belgium (n = 14). RESULTS: Practices and policies for the handling of incidental findings vary strongly across the Netherlands, ranging from no review of research scans and limited feedback to research participants, to routine review of scans and the arrangement of clinical follow-up. Respondents felt that researchers do not have a duty to actively look for incidental findings, but they do have a duty to act on findings, when detected. The principle of reciprocity featured prominently in our interviews and expert meeting. CONCLUSION: We present an ethical framework that may guide researchers and research ethics committees in the design and/or evaluation of appropriate pathways for the handling of incidental findings in imaging studies. The framework consists of seven steps: anticipation of findings, information provision and informed consent, scan acquisition, review of scans, consultation on detected abnormalities, communication of the finding, and further clinical management and follow-up of the research participant. Each of these steps represents a key decision to be made by researchers, which should be justified not only with reference to costs and/or logistical considerations, but also with reference to researchers' moral obligations and the principle of reciprocity.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , Diagnostic Imaging , Disclosure/ethics , Incidental Findings , Moral Obligations , Research Personnel/ethics , Ethics, Research , Europe , Humans
9.
Lancet Oncol ; 14(1): e38-46, 2013 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23276372

ABSTRACT

A difference between colorectal cancer screening and screening for most other types of cancer is that various screening methods are available. A choice between screening methods is common in the USA. Most European programmes currently offer a single screening method, since it is recommended that only screening strategies with sufficient evidence for a reduction in colorectal cancer mortality are introduced. Faecal occult blood testing is widely accepted in Europe, and evidence on the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy is increasing. The availability of multiple effective screening options warrants deliberation on whether individuals should be given a choice between strategies. In this Personal View, we present arguments in favour and against offering a choice of screening strategies, together with the evidence substantiating these views. We also focus on screening invitees' autonomy, which is a crucial parameter in the debate.


Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer , Choice Behavior , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Europe , Feces , Humans , Occult Blood , Sigmoidoscopy , United States
10.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 209(1): 11-6, 2013 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23313726

ABSTRACT

This Clinical Opinion points to a potential conflict between the scarcity of evidence on paternal preconception risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes and the view that preconception care should be also directed at men. We argue that from an ethical perspective, responsible fatherhood starts already before conception, as long as the evidence increases on the benefits of paternal preconception lifestyle (modification). Our explorative study suggests that the strength of the evidence for paternal preconception lifestyle modification is important for men. We argue that 5 aspects together determine the moral responsibility of prospective fathers to modify their behavior: the strength of the evidence of the risk factor, the modifiability of the risk, the efforts necessary to eliminate or diminish the risk factor, the severity of harm, and the probability that harm will occur and that it will be prevented by modifying the risk factor. The case of paternal preconception smoking illustrates the analysis.


Subject(s)
Fathers , Life Style , Preconception Care/ethics , Adult , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Fathers/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Pregnancy , Probability , Risk , Risk Factors , Smoking/adverse effects , Smoking/psychology
11.
Fam Pract ; 30(3): 341-6, 2013 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23180815

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Preconception care is a promising new approach to improve the health of future children through primary intervention. Although most women have a positive attitude towards preconception care, women often do not seek preconception care for themselves. OBJECTIVE: To explore women's hesitancy to seek preconception counselling. METHODS: An empirical-analytic approach was used to explore women's hesitation to seek preconception counselling. In-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews (n = 16) of women desiring to conceive were conducted, and responses were analysed using the determinants 'attitude' and 'subjective norms' of the Theory of Planned Behaviour of Ajzen. RESULTS: The interviewed women expressed a positive attitude towards preconception care in general but were hesitant about seeking preconception care themselves. Women seemed to regard themselves as not being in the target group for preconception care. Additionally, we identified the following four subthemes of subjective norms around the process of becoming pregnant: planning, publicity, information on fertility and artificiality. CONCLUSIONS: Women do not consider themselves to be part of the target group for preconception care. In some aspects, subjective norms around the process of becoming pregnant may conflict with the current practice of preconception care. Recommendations are provided.


Subject(s)
Counseling/statistics & numerical data , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Preconception Care/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Pregnancy , Qualitative Research
12.
Eur J Public Health ; 23(2): 299-305, 2013 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23132871

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: It is important to be aware of the ethical pitfalls in programmes to prevent overweight and obesity, such as stigmatization, blaming the victim and reinforcement of health inequalities. In this article, we present an ethical framework for facilitating a structured analysis to the extent to which a programme prevents overweight or obesity is ethically acceptable. METHODS: First, we made an inventory of ethical issues in programmes to prevent overweight and obesity. Secondly, we studied the available ethical frameworks that address the area of public health. Finally, we designed an ethical framework for the prevention of overweight and obesity, which was tested in two international workshops. RESULTS: At the heart of the framework is a list of eight questions on the morally relevant features of a programme: its effects on physical health, psychosocial well-being, informed choice, cultural values, equality, privacy, responsibility and liberty. Answering these questions provides a map of the potential ethical pitfalls of a specific programme. This mapping should be followed by a structured discussion of the arguments and their importance, and the decision whether, and if so under what conditions, the programme should be implemented. CONCLUSION: Considering the ethical aspects of the programmes to prevent obesity or overweight is extremely important in the face of the urgent and extensive health problem of overweight and obesity. Our framework is a practical tool for systematic ethical evaluation. It is applicable to a broad range of programmes in different stages of development and implementation.


Subject(s)
Health Promotion/ethics , Health Promotion/methods , Overweight/prevention & control , Program Development , Health Policy , Humans , Obesity/prevention & control , Program Evaluation , Public Health/ethics
13.
Eur J Hum Genet ; 29(1): 2-10, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32759960

ABSTRACT

The introduction of the accurate and procedurally easy non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) raises ethical concerns that public attitudes towards prenatal screening may change, leading to societal pressure to participate in aneuploidy screening. This study examined Dutch citizens' attitudes towards a pregnant woman's decision to (1) decline NIPT in the context of two different funding policies and (2) to terminate or continue a pregnancy affected by different disorders. The attitudes of 1096 respondents were assessed with the contrastive vignette method, using two pairs of vignettes about declining NIPT and termination of pregnancy. Most respondents either agreed with a woman's decision to decline NIPT or were neutral about it, stating that this decision should be made independently by women, and does not warrant judgement by others. Interestingly, funding policies did influence respondents' attitudes: significantly more respondents disagreed with declining NIPT when it was fully reimbursed. Respondents had similar attitudes to the vignettes on termination and continuation of pregnancy in case of Down's syndrome. In case of Edwards' or Patau's syndrome, however, significantly more respondents disagreed with continuation, citing the severity of the disorder and the child's best interests. This study demonstrates broad acknowledgement of women's freedom of choice in Dutch society; a finding that may help to rebut existing concerns about societal pressure for pregnant women to participate in prenatal screening. As the reimbursement policy and the scope of NIPT may influence people's attitudes and elicit moral judgements, however, maintaining freedom of choice warrants sustained efforts by health professionals and policy makers.


Subject(s)
Attitude , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/ethics , Peer Influence , Personal Autonomy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Netherlands , Noninvasive Prenatal Testing/legislation & jurisprudence
14.
J Med Ethics ; 36(7): 420-4, 2010 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20605997

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the requirement of "minimal risk and burden" for paediatric research without direct benefit to the subjects compromises the ability to obtain data necessary for improving paediatric care. To provide evidence-based reflections on the EU recommendation that allows for a higher level of risk. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic analysis of the approval/rejection decisions made by the Dutch Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (CCMO). REVIEW METHODS: The analysis included 165 proposals for paediatric research without direct benefit that were reviewed by the CCMO between January, 2000, and July, 2007. A separate, in-depth analysis of all drug studies included 18 early phase drug studies and nine other drug studies without direct benefit. RESULTS: 11 out of 165 studies were definitively rejected because the CCMO did not regard the risk and/or burden to be minimal. In three of these 11 cases (including two early phase drug studies) the requirement of minimal risk and burden was cited as the only reason for rejection. Four other early phase drug studies also involved risks and/or burdens that were not regarded to be minimal but were nevertheless approved. CONCLUSIONS: The requirement of minimal risk and burden, aiming to protect research subjects, occasionally leads to rejection of protocols. Early phase drug studies relatively often do not comply with the requirement. Committees may find ways to approve important studies that formally should be rejected, but that is not a desirable solution. The regulatory framework should be revised to make such occasional exceptions to the requirement legitimate and transparent.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , Clinical Trials as Topic , Human Experimentation , Pediatrics , Child , Decision Making , Humans , Netherlands , Risk
15.
BMC Public Health ; 10: 638, 2010 Oct 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20969761

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prevention of overweight sometimes raises complex ethical questions. Ethical public health frameworks may be helpful in evaluating programs or policy for overweight prevention. We give an overview of the purpose, form and contents of such public health frameworks and investigate to which extent they are useful for evaluating programs to prevent overweight and/or obesity. METHODS: Our search for frameworks consisted of three steps. Firstly, we asked experts in the field of ethics and public health for the frameworks they were aware of. Secondly, we performed a search in Pubmed. Thirdly, we checked literature references in the articles on frameworks we found. In total, we thus found six ethical frameworks. We assessed the area on which the available ethical frameworks focus, the users they target at, the type of policy or intervention they propose to address, and their aim. Further, we looked at their structure and content, that is, tools for guiding the analytic process, the main ethical principles or values, possible criteria for dealing with ethical conflicts, and the concrete policy issues they are applied to. RESULTS: All frameworks aim to support public health professionals or policymakers. Most of them provide a set of values or principles that serve as a standard for evaluating policy. Most frameworks articulate both the positive ethical foundations for public health and ethical constraints or concerns. Some frameworks offer analytic tools for guiding the evaluative process. Procedural guidelines and concrete criteria for solving important ethical conflicts in the particular area of the prevention of overweight or obesity are mostly lacking. CONCLUSIONS: Public health ethical frameworks may be supportive in the evaluation of overweight prevention programs or policy, but seem to lack practical guidance to address ethical conflicts in this particular area.


Subject(s)
Overweight/prevention & control , Program Evaluation , Public Health/ethics , Ethics, Professional , Health Policy , Humans
16.
Am J Med Genet A ; 146A(24): 3136-46, 2008 Dec 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19012345

ABSTRACT

We studied the experiences of children identified by family screening who were found to be a mutation carrier for a genetic cardiovascular disease (Long QT Syndrome (LQTS), Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM), Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH)). We addressed the (a) manner in which they perceive their carrier status, (b) impact on their daily lives, and (c) strategy used to cope with these consequences. Children (aged 8-18) who tested positive for LQTS (n=11), HCM (n=6) or FH (n=16), and their parents participated in semi-structured audiotaped interviews. Interview topics included illness perception, use of medication, lifestyle modifications, worries, and coping. Each interview was coded by two researchers. The qualitative analysis was guided by Leventhal's model of self-regulation. The children were overall quite articulate about the disease they were tested for, including its mode of inheritance. They expressed positive future health perceptions, but feelings of controllability varied. Adherence and side-effects were significant themes with regard to medication-use. Refraining from activities and maintaining a non-fat diet were themes concerning lifestyle modifications. Some children spontaneously reported worries about the possibility of dying and frustration about being different from peers. Children coped with these worries by expressing faith in the effectiveness of medication, trying to be similar to peers or, in contrast, emphasizing their "being different." Children generally appeared effective in the way they coped with their carrier status and its implications. Nevertheless, dealing with the daily implications of their condition remains difficult in some situations, warranting continued availability of psychosocial support.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/genetics , Genetic Testing , Heterozygote , Adaptation, Psychological , Adolescent , Child , Cognition , Demography , Emotions , Female , Humans , Male , Mutation/genetics , Parents
17.
Narrat Inq Bioeth ; 8(3): 247-260, 2018.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30595592

ABSTRACT

The Netherlands awoke with a shock to some highly publicized cases of clients suffering second-degree burns from inadequate use of laser technology for hair removal in the beauty salon. Aestheticians are increasingly offering risky and sometimes irreversible skin-enhancing treatments. Because of the complexity and hazards of the beauty profession and its proximity at times to the domain of health care, it merits attention from bioethicists. This article presents an overview of ethical issues arising within the everyday practice of the beauty salon, based on discussions with aestheticians and a survey, and reports on the development of the world's first national ethics guidelines for aestheticians. Key recommendations pertain to age limits, informed consent, confidentiality, tensions arising from aestheticians' dual role as care providers and entrepreneurs, and the management of incidental findings. This article directs scholarly effort at ethical issues in the beauty salon, and invites further discussion of a hitherto underserved field.


Subject(s)
Beauty , Bioethical Issues , Codes of Ethics , Occupations , Age Factors , Confidentiality , Health Personnel , Humans , Incidental Findings , Informed Consent , Netherlands , Professional Role
18.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol ; 15(5): 292-309, 2018 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29485132

ABSTRACT

The incidence of cancer is continuing to rise and risk-tailored early diagnostic and/or primary prevention strategies are urgently required. The ideal risk-predictive test should: integrate the effects of both genetic and nongenetic factors and aim to capture these effects using an approach that is both biologically stable and technically reproducible; derive a score from easily accessible biological samples that acts as a surrogate for the organ in question; and enable the effectiveness of risk-reducing measures to be monitored. Substantial evidence has accumulated suggesting that the epigenome and, in particular, DNA methylation-based tests meet all of these requirements. However, the development and implementation of DNA methylation-based risk-prediction tests poses considerable challenges. In particular, the cell type specificity of DNA methylation and the extensive cellular heterogeneity of the easily accessible surrogate cells that might contain information relevant to less accessible tissues necessitates the use of novel methods in order to account for these confounding issues. Furthermore, the engagement of the scientific community with health-care professionals, policymakers and the public is required in order to identify and address the organizational, ethical, legal, social and economic challenges associated with the routine use of epigenetic testing.


Subject(s)
DNA Methylation/genetics , Epigenomics/trends , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Risk Assessment , Genome, Human/genetics , Humans , Neoplasms/genetics , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL