Trust-building: Why Virtual Formats Threaten the Moral Ends of Surgical Informed Consent.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic forced a wide range of medical practices to virtual formats, including the preoperative informed consent practice. However, virtual informed consent persists despite the pandemic being largely considered resolved. The continued use of virtual formats relies on a problematic "information transfer" model of informed consent. We suggest a "trust-building" model of consent as a better conceptualization of what is occurring during the consent process. Highlighting how virtual formats might fail to fulfill this fuller understanding of consent on both interpersonal and systemic levels, we offer an ethical structure for physicians to navigate this novel virtual space.

Perception of Polish patients with cancer of the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research.

BACKGROUND: Although biobanks have become fundamental to many research centers and contribute to medical development, they generate many ethical and legal issues that may discourage patients from donating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To understand patients' perception of ethical and legal issues related to biobanks we conducted a survey among 548 Polish patients with cancer. RESULTS: While 93.1% of patients with cancer declared themselves willing to donate biospecimens left over after a medical procedure to a biobank, most opted for one-time consent or study-specific consent, blanket consent being less frequently preferred. Many patients believed that future use of previously collected tissues require second contact. Most patients preferred pseudonymization over anonymization of the data, and supported donors' right to withdraw informed consent at any given moment. Finally, while personal health information was the most expected form of compensation for donation, most patients suggested that all parties, including the biobank concerned, the sponsors of the research, and the donors, should own the rights to cancer tissues donated and profit from the biobank research. Patients' opinions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research were associated with age, sex, religiosity, education level, and place of residence. CONCLUSIONS: Since biobanks generate ethical and legal issues related to informed consent, data protection and storage, as well as the sharing of biosamples, tissue ownership, and profit sharing, that may discourage patients from donation, when asking a patient for a donation, healthcare professionals should communicate in a donor-centered manner and address patients' ethical and moral concerns related to donation and offer resources to help manage these concerns.

Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence in dermatology: a scoping review.

The field of dermatology is experiencing the rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI), from mobile applications (apps) for skin cancer detection to large language models like ChatGPT that can answer generalist or specialist questions about skin diagnoses. With these new applications, ethical concerns have emerged. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify the applications of AI to the field of dermatology and to understand their ethical implications. We used a multifaceted search approach, searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar for primary literature, following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidance. Our advanced query included terms related to dermatology, AI and ethical considerations. Our search yielded 202 papers. After initial screening, 68 studies were included. Thirty-two were related to clinical image analysis and raised ethical concerns for misdiagnosis, data security, privacy violations and replacement of dermatologist jobs. Seventeen discussed limited skin of colour representation in datasets leading to potential misdiagnosis in the general population. Nine articles about teledermatology raised ethical concerns, including the exacerbation of health disparities, lack of standardized regulations, informed consent for AI use and privacy challenges. Seven addressed inaccuracies in the responses of large language models. Seven examined attitudes toward and trust in AI, with most patients requesting supplemental assessment by a physician to ensure reliability and accountability. Benefits of AI integration into clinical practice include increased patient access, improved clinical decision-making, efficiency and many others. However, safeguards must be put in place to ensure the ethical application of AI.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in dermatology is rapidly increasing, with applications in dermatopathology, medical dermatology, cutaneous surgery, microscopy/spectroscopy and the identification of prognostic biomarkers (characteristics that provide information on likely patient health outcomes). However, with the rise of AI in dermatology, ethical concerns have emerged. We reviewed the existing literature to identify applications of AI in the field of dermatology and understand the ethical implications. Our search initially identified 202 papers, and after we went through them (screening), 68 were included in our review. We found that ethical concerns are related to the use of AI in the areas of clinical image analysis, teledermatology, natural language processing models, privacy, skin of colour representation, and patient and provider attitudes toward AI. We identified nine ethical principles to facilitate the safe use of AI in dermatology. These ethical principles include fairness, inclusivity, transparency, accountability, security, privacy, reliability, informed consent and conflict of interest. Although there are many benefits of integrating AI into clinical practice, our findings highlight how safeguards must be put in place to reduce rising ethical concerns.

Ethical Dilemmas of Using Artificial Intelligence in Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is considered the fourth industrial revolution that will change the evolution of humanity technically and relationally. Although the term has been around since 1956, it has only recently become apparent that AI can revolutionize technologies and has many applications in the medical field. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: The ethical dilemmas posed by the use of AI in medicine revolve around issues related to informed consent, respect for confidentiality, protection of personal data, and last but not least the accuracy of the information it uses. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2022) using combinations of keywords, including: AI, future in medicine, and machine learning plus ethical dilemma. ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: The ethical analysis of the issues raised by AI used in medicine must mainly address nonmaleficence and beneficence, both in correlation with patient safety risks, ability versus inability to detect correct information from inadequate or even incorrect information. The development of AI tools that can support medical practice can increase people's access to medical information, to obtain a second opinion, for example, but it is also a source of concern among health care professionals and especially bioethicists about how confidentiality is maintained and how to maintain cybersecurity. Another major risk may be related to the dehumanization of the medical act, given that, at least for now, empathy and compassion are accessible only to human beings. CONCLUSIONS: AI has not yet managed to overcome certain limits, lacking moral subjectivity, empathy, the level of critical thinking is still insufficient, but no matter who will practice preventive or curative medicine in the next period, they will not be able to ignore AI, which under human control can be an important tool in medical practice.

Harmonising green informed consent with autonomous clinical decision-making: a reply to Resnik and Pugh.

Resnik and Pugh recently explored the ethical implications of routinely integrating environmental concerns into clinical decision-making. While we share their concern for the holistic well-being of patients, our response offers a different clinical and bioethical stance on green informed consent and patient autonomy. Contrary to the authors' lack of data to support their concerns about provider and patient willingness to engage in climate-related conversations, we provide evidence supporting their sustainability engagement and stress the importance of a proactive, anticipatory approach in healthcare to align with evolving societal values. If climate change is perceived as a politicised issue, though it is not inherently so, healthcare providers are professionally trained to address sensitive subjects and have a duty to inform patients about potential health risks. Recognising the environmental crisis as a health crisis underscores the direct connection between environmental hazards and patients' well-being. Our perspective advocates for integrating individual considerations, societal responsibilities and systemic changes to promote environmentally sustainable healthcare.

No consent for brain death testing.

The overwhelming weight of legal authority in the USA and Canada holds that consent is not required for brain death testing. The situation in England and Wales is similar but different. While clinicians in England and Wales may have a prima facie duty to obtain consent, lack of consent has not barred testing. In three recent cases where consent for brain death testing was formally presented to the court, lack of consent was not determinative, and in one case the court questioned whether the clinicians were even required to seek consent from the parents of a child at all.

Ethical and Equity Guidance for Transplant Programs Considering Thoracoabdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion (TA-NRP) for Procurement of Hearts.

Donation after circulatory determination of death (DCDD) is an accepted practice in the United States, but heart procurement under these circumstances has been debated. Although the practice is experiencing a resurgence due to the recently completed trials using ex vivo perfusion systems, interest in thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (TA-NRP), wherein the organs are reanimated in situ prior to procurement, has raised many ethical questions. We outline practical, ethical, and equity considerations to ensure transplant programs make well-informed decisions about TA-NRP. We present a multidisciplinary analysis of the relevant ethical issues arising from DCDD-NRP heart procurement, including application of the Dead Donor Rule and the Uniform Definition of Death Act, and provide recommendations to facilitate ethical analysis and input from all interested parties. We also recommend informed consent, as distinct from typical "authorization," for cadaveric organ donation using TA-NRP.

'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE).

BACKGROUND: Health and care research involving people who lack capacity to consent requires an alternative decision maker to decide whether they participate or not based on their 'presumed will'. However, this is often unknown. Advance research planning (ARP) is a process for people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to prospectively express their preferences about research participation and identify who they wish to be involved in future decisions. This may help to extend individuals' autonomy by ensuring that proxy decisions are based on their actual wishes. This qualitative study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of ARP and identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the UK. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 researchers, practitioners, and members of the public who had participated in a preceding survey. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and November 2023. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants were supportive of the concept of ARP, with differing amounts of support for the range of possible ARP activities depending on the context. Six main themes were identified: (1) Planting a seed - creating opportunities to initiate/engage with ARP; (2) A missing part of the puzzle - how preferences expressed through ARP could help inform decisions; (3) Finding the sweet spot - optimising the timing of ARP; (4) More than a piece of paper - finding the best mode for recording preferences; (5) Keeping the door open to future opportunities - minimising the risk of unintended consequences; and (6) Navigating with a compass - principles underpinning ARP to ensure safeguarding and help address inequalities. Participants also identified a number of implementation challenges, and proposed facilitative strategies that might overcome them which included embedding advance research planning in existing future planning processes and research-focused activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a routemap to implementing ARP in the UK to enable people anticipating impaired capacity to express their preferences about research, thus ensuring greater opportunities for inclusion of this under-served group, and addressing the decisional burden experienced by some family members acting as proxies. Development of interventions and guidance to support ARP is needed, with a focus on ensuring accessibility.

Exploring the consent process among pregnant and breastfeeding women taking part in a maternal vaccine clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials presents unique challenges for the informed consent process. We explored the expectations and experiences of the pregnant women, spouses/partners, health workers and stakeholders of the consent process during a Group B Streptococcus maternal vaccine trial. METHODS: We interviewed 56 participants including pregnant women taking part in the trial, women not in the trial, health workers handling the trial procedures, spouses, and community stakeholders. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 23 women in the trial, in-depth interviews with 5 spouses, and 5 women not in the trial, key informant interviews with 5 health workers and 5 other stakeholders were undertaken. RESULTS: Decision-making by a pregnant woman to join a trial was done in consultation with spouse, parents, siblings, or trusted health workers. Written study information was appreciated by all but they suggested the use of audio and visual presentation to enhance understanding. Women stressed the need to ensure that their male partners received study information before their pregnant partners joined a clinical trial. Confidentiality in research was emphasised differently by individual participants; while some emphasised it for self, others were keen to protect their family members from being exposed, for allowing them to be involved in research. However, others wanted their community participation to be acknowledged. CONCLUSION: We found that pregnant women make decisions to join a clinical trial after consulting with close family. Our findings suggest the need for an information strategy which informs not only the pregnant woman, but also her family about the research she is invited to engage in.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Ethical considerations and concerns in the implementation of AI in pharmacy practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has raised significant ethical concerns. In pharmacy practice, AI offers promising advances but also poses ethical challenges. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in countries from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region on 501 pharmacy professionals. A 12-item online questionnaire assessed ethical concerns related to the adoption of AI in pharmacy practice. Demographic factors associated with ethical concerns were analyzed via SPSS v.27 software using appropriate statistical tests. RESULTS: Participants expressed concerns about patient data privacy (58.9%), cybersecurity threats (58.9%), potential job displacement (62.9%), and lack of legal regulation (67.0%). Tech-savviness and basic AI understanding were correlated with higher concern scores (p < 0.001). Ethical implications include the need for informed consent, beneficence, justice, and transparency in the use of AI. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasize the importance of ethical guidelines, education, and patient autonomy in adopting AI. Collaboration, data privacy, and equitable access are crucial to the responsible use of AI in pharmacy practice.

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The internet community has become a significant source for researchers to conduct qualitative studies analyzing users' views, attitudes, and experiences about public health. However, few studies have assessed the ethical issues in qualitative research using social media data. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research utilizing social media data on public health care. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of studies mining text from internet communities and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 to May 31, 2023. These studies, limited to the English language, were retrieved to evaluate the rates of reporting ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues. We searched 5 databases, that is, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Embase. Gray literature was supplemented from Google Scholar and OpenGrey websites. Studies using qualitative methods mining text from the internet community focusing on health care topics were deemed eligible. Data extraction was performed using a standardized data extraction spreadsheet. Findings were reported using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. RESULTS: After 4674 titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, 108 studies on mining text from the internet community were included. Nearly half of the studies were published in the United States, with more studies from 2019 to 2022. Only 59.3% (64/108) of the studies sought ethical approval, 45.3% (49/108) mentioned informed consent, and only 12.9% (14/108) of the studies explicitly obtained informed consent. Approximately 86% (12/14) of the studies that reported informed consent obtained digital informed consent from participants/administrators, while 14% (2/14) did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent. Notably, 70.3% (76/108) of the studies contained users' written content or posts: 68% (52/76) contained verbatim quotes, while 32% (24/76) paraphrased the quotes to prevent traceability. However, 16% (4/24) of the studies that paraphrased the quotes did not report the paraphrasing methods. Moreover, 18.5% (20/108) of the studies used aggregated data analysis to protect users' privacy. Furthermore, the rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different countries (P=.02) and between papers that contained users' written content (both direct and paraphrased quotes) and papers that did not contain users' written content (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review demonstrates that the reporting of ethical considerations is widely neglected in qualitative research studies using social media data; such studies should be more cautious in citing user quotes to maintain user privacy. Further, our review reveals the need for detailed information on the precautions of obtaining informed consent and paraphrasing to reduce the potential bias. A national consensus of ethical considerations such as ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues is needed for qualitative research of health care using social media data of internet communities.

Ethical, Legal, and Practical Concerns Surrounding the Implemention of New Forms of Consent for Health Data Research: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, within the scope of the General Data Protection Regulation, more and more digital infrastructures are created to allow for large-scale access to patients' health data and their use for research. When the research is performed on the basis of patient consent, traditional study-specific consent appears too cumbersome for many researchers. Alternative models of consent are currently being discussed and introduced in different contexts. OBJECTIVE: This study explores stakeholder perspectives on ethical, legal, and practical concerns regarding models of consent for health data research at German university medical centers. METHODS: Semistructured focus group interviews were conducted with medical researchers at German university medical centers, health IT specialists, data protection officers, and patient representatives. The interviews were analyzed using a software-supported structuring qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholders regarded broad consent to be only marginally less laborious to implement and manage than tiered consent. Patient representatives favored specific consent, with tiered consent as a possible alternative. All stakeholders lamented that information material was difficult to understand. Oral information and videos were mentioned as a means of improvement. Patient representatives doubted that researchers had a sufficient degree of data security expertise to act as sole information providers. They were afraid of undue pressure if obtaining health data research consent were part of medical appointments. IT specialists and other stakeholders regarded the withdrawal of consent to be a major challenge and called for digital consent management solutions. On the one hand, the transfer of health data to non-European countries and for-profit organizations is seen as a necessity for research. On the other hand, there are data security concerns with regard to these actors. Research without consent is legally possible under certain conditions but deemed problematic by all stakeholder groups, albeit for differing reasons and to different degrees. CONCLUSIONS: More efforts should be made to determine which options of choice should be included in health data research consent. Digital tools could improve patient information and facilitate consent management. A unified and strict regulation for research without consent is required at the national and European Union level. Obtaining consent for health data research should be independent of medical appointments, and additional personnel should be trained in data security to provide information on health data research.

Envisioning the Future of Personalized Medicine: Role and Realities of Digital Twins.

Digital twins have emerged as a groundbreaking concept in personalized medicine, offering immense potential to transform health care delivery and improve patient outcomes. It is important to highlight the impact of digital twins on personalized medicine across the understanding of patient health, risk assessment, clinical trials and drug development, and patient monitoring. By mirroring individual health profiles, digital twins offer unparalleled insights into patient-specific conditions, enabling more accurate risk assessments and tailored interventions. However, their application extends beyond clinical benefits, prompting significant ethical debates over data privacy, consent, and potential biases in health care. The rapid evolution of this technology necessitates a careful balancing act between innovation and ethical responsibility. As the field of personalized medicine continues to evolve, digital twins hold tremendous promise in transforming health care delivery and revolutionizing patient care. While challenges exist, the continued development and integration of digital twins hold the potential to revolutionize personalized medicine, ushering in an era of tailored treatments and improved patient well-being. Digital twins can assist in recognizing trends and indicators that might signal the presence of diseases or forecast the likelihood of developing specific medical conditions, along with the progression of such diseases. Nevertheless, the use of human digital twins gives rise to ethical dilemmas related to informed consent, data ownership, and the potential for discrimination based on health profiles. There is a critical need for robust guidelines and regulations to navigate these challenges, ensuring that the pursuit of advanced health care solutions does not compromise patient rights and well-being. This viewpoint aims to ignite a comprehensive dialogue on the responsible integration of digital twins in medicine, advocating for a future where technology serves as a cornerstone for personalized, ethical, and effective patient care.

Informed Consent and Digit Replantation: Current State and Recommendations for Ethical Patient Care.

The importance of informed consent and the value of shared decision-making in hand surgery are well-established and particularly critical in the setting of digit amputation when considering replantation. Informed consent requires an understanding of not only the immediate and long-term risks and benefits of surgery, as well as the risks and alternatives involved, but also the capacity of the patient to make a medical decision. However, patients who have acutely sustained a disfiguring trauma are often in distress and may not fully process the consent discussion. Digit replantation is an "elective emergency"-the decision must be made immediately but is not lifesaving-which poses a difficult dilemma: are surgeons acting in patients' best interests by pursuing replantation if we engage those patients in informed consent discussions when they may not have capacity? This article explores the relevant bioethical principles associated with digit replantation, summarizes updated literature regarding informed consent and shared decision-making, and provides recommendations for patient education materials to standardize informed consent discussions for surgeons approaching patients at this unique intersection of considering revision amputation versus replantation.

Ethics for AI in Plastic Surgery: Guidelines and Review.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) holds the potential to revolutionize medicine, offering vast improvements for plastic surgery. While human physicians are limited to one lifetime of experience, AI is poised to soon surpass human capabilities, as it draws on limitless information and continuous learning abilities. Nevertheless, as AI becomes increasingly prevalent in this domain, it gives rise to critical ethical considerations that must be addressed by professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This work reviews the literature referring to the ethical challenges brought on by the ever-expanding use of AI in plastic surgery and offers guidelines for its application. RESULTS: Ethical challenges include the disclosure of use of AI by caregivers, validation of decision-making, data privacy, informed consent and autonomy, potential biases in AI systems, the opaque nature of AI models, questions of liability, and the need for regulations. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus for the ethical use of AI in plastic surgery. Guidelines, such as those presented in this work, are needed within each discipline of medicine to respond to important ethical considerations for the safe use of AI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Ethical Problems of Observational Studies and Big Data Compared to Randomized Trials.

The temptation to use prospective observational studies (POS) instead of conducting difficult trials (RCTs) has always existed, but with the advent of powerful computers and large databases, it can become almost irresistible. We examine the potential consequences, were this to occur, by comparing two hypothetical studies of a new treatment: one RCT, and one POS. The POS inevitably submits more patients to inferior research methodology. In RCTs, patients are clearly informed of the research context, and 1:1 randomized allocation between experimental and validated treatment balances risks for each patient. In POS, for each patient, the risks of receiving inferior treatment are impossible to estimate. The research context and the uncertainty are down-played, and patients and clinicians are at risk of becoming passive research subjects in studies performed from an outsider's view, which potentially has extraneous objectives, and is conducted without their explicit, autonomous, and voluntary involvement and consent.

An Egalitarian Perspective on Information Sharing: The Example of Health Care Priorities.

In health care, the provision of pertinent information to patients is not just a moral imperative but also a legal obligation, often articulated through the lens of obtaining informed consent. Codes of medical ethics and many national laws mandate the disclosure of basic information about diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment alternatives. However, within publicly funded health care systems, other kinds of information might also be important to patients, such as insights into the health care priorities that underlie treatment offers made. While conventional perspectives do not take this as an obligatory part of the information to be shared with patients, perhaps through viewing it as clinically "non-actionable," we advocate for a paradigm shift. Our proposition diverges from the traditional emphasis on actionability. We contend that honoring patients as equal moral agents necessitates, among other principles, a commitment to honesty. Withholding specific categories of information pertinent to patients' comprehension of their situation is inherently incompatible with this principle. In this article, we advocate for a recalibration of the burden of proof. Rather than requiring special justifications for adding to the standard set of information items, we suggest that physicians should be able to justify excluding relevant facts about the patient's situation and the underlying considerations shaping health care professionals' choices. This perspective prioritizes transparency and empowers patients with a comprehensive understanding, aligning with the ethos of respect for the patient as person.