External second opinions: building trust between health professionals and families.

In medicine, external second opinions are frequently sought to inform decisions around a patient's proposed course of treatment. However, they are also sought in more challenging circumstances such as when disagreement arises between the healthcare team and the family, or during complex end-of-life discussions in critically ill children. When done well, external second opinions can help build trust and reduce conflict. However, when done poorly they may antagonise relationships and thwart attempts to bring about consensus. While principles of good medical practice should always be followed, the actual second opinion process itself remains essentially unregulated in all its forms. In this review, we set out what a standardised and transparent second opinion process should look like and recommend key recommendations for healthcare Trusts, Commissioners and professional bodies to support good practice.

Resolving Disagreement: A Multi-Jurisdictional Comparative Analysis of Disputes About Children's Medical Care.

Recently, the English courts have dealt with a number high-profile, emotive disputes over the care of very ill children, including Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Tafida Raqeeb. It is perhaps fair to say such cases have become a regular feature of the courts in England. But is the situation similar in other jurisdictions? If not, are there lessons to be learned from these jurisdictions that do not seem to need to call on judges to resolve these otherwise intractable disputes? We argue that many of the differences we see between jurisdictions derive from cultural and social differences manifesting in both the legal rules in place, and how the various parties interact with, and defer to, one another. We further argue that while recourse to the courts is undesirable in many ways, it is also indicative of a society that permits difference of views and provides for these differences to be considered in a public manner following clear procedural and precedential rules. These are the hallmarks of a liberal democracy that allows for pluralism of values, while still remaining committed to protecting the most vulnerable parties in these disputes-children facing life-limiting conditions.

Trust women to choose: a response to John a Robertson's 'Egg freezing and Egg banking: empowerment and alienation in assisted reproduction'.

In 'Egg Freezing and Egg Banking: Empowerment and Alienation in Assisted Reproduction', John A Robertson responds to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine's statement that oocyte preservation should no longer be considered an experimental treatment. He explores the implications of this development, focusing on the potentially empowering impact of oocyte preservation as a means for women to preserve their fertility. He also engages with concerns about the possibility that such a development may raise issues of alienation. He highlights some of the potential problems that may emerge as women gain the capacity to store and either donate or sell any eggs they do not need for their own reproductive purposes. Much of his paper is valuable and considered, but in places, his views rest on assumptions about women's attitudes to their fertility, understanding of the technology, and relationship with their gametes that are open to dispute. This paper teases out some of these assumptions and puts pressure on them by drawing on the growing body of data about what women actually do think and feel about fertility issues. It focuses on two of his main concerns-that social egg freezing may give women a false sense of security and that women may be harmed if a market in eggs leads to their alienation from their gametes. Via this response to Robertson, I aim to redress the tendency often seen in discussions around women, infertility, aging, and empowerment to unquestioningly accept what I argue are stereotypes and assumptions about women's views and capacity to reason.

OBLIGING SURGEONS TO ENHANCE: NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY FOR UNCORRECTED FATIGUE AND PROBLEMS WITH PROVING CAUSATION.

Increasing interest in the use of cognitive enhancing pharmaceuticals, such as modafinil, has led to considerable ethical debate about issues around authenticity, fairness and even whether there is a moral obligation to enhance. This latter question has raised questions as to whether there might be a legal obligation to enhance. We have argued elsewhere that the law will not oblige a professional to self-enhance. In this article, we explore a second reason why a claim of negligence for a failure to enhance would be unlikely to succeed: the problem of establishing causation. As the science on enhancers and what they are capable of currently stands, it would be almost invariably impossible to establish a causal link between failure to enhance to redress fatigue, and the harm that allegedly resulted. Even where a link between fatigue and harm can be established, it will be extremely difficult to show that taking an enhancer would have averted the harm. We focus on the most likely context in which such claims might arise--clinical negligence--and on the most efficacious enhancing drug currently available-modafinil.

Why does it matter how we regulate the use of human body parts?

Human tissue and body parts have been used in one way or another for millennia. They have been preserved and displayed, both in museums and public shows. Real human hair is used for wigs, while some artists even use human tissue in their works. Blood, bone marrow, whole organs and a host of other structures and human substances are all transplanted into living persons to treat illness. New life can be created from gametes through in vitro fertilisation (IVF), while the creation of cell lines keeps tissue alive indefinitely. These uses create significant challenges for the legal system in the UK. The major challenge for the law is to balance the competing demands of those groups who have vested interests in human tissue-researchers, medical practitioners, patients, families, the community and the police, among many others. It must provide sufficient control to users of tissue, but also take account of the fact that our bodies hold psychological importance for us while we live and, after we die, for those we leave behind. To some degree the law has been successful, but we still lack a comprehensive, coherent approach to the regulation of human tissue. Partially as a reaction to this lack of a comprehensive approach, some commentators have turned to applying the concept of property to human tissue means to achieve regulatory outcomes they support.

Property or not property? The spectrum of approaches to regulating the use of human bodily material.

This article presents the case for taking a property approach in regulating the use of human bodily material. It examines the current debates on the issue and outlines the various perspectives, ranging from the anti-property stance, through the spectrum of positions on modified and semi-proprietary approaches, through to the "full-blooded" property approach advocated by some commentators. It elucidates why those approaches that allow some proprietary aspects into regulation are to be preferred.

In favour of freezing eggs for non-medical reasons.

This article explores the social benefits and moral arguments in favour of women and couples freezing eggs and embryos for social reasons. Social IVF promotes equal participation by women in employment; it offers women more time to choose a partner; it provides better opportunities for the child as it allows couples more time to become financially stable; it may reduce the risk of genetic and chromosomal abnormality; it allows women and couples to have another child if circumstances change; it offers an option to women and children at risk of ovarian failure; it may increase the egg and embryo pool. There are strong arguments based on equal concern and respect for women which require that women have access to this new technology. Freezing eggs also avoids some of the moral objections associated with freezing embryos.

Quality and safety of genetic testing in Australia and New Zealand: a review of the current regulatory framework.

This paper provides an overview of the regulation of quality assurance for genetic testing in Australia and New Zealand and outlines the steps currently being taken to critically appraise and improve the regulatory framework in each country. It aims to contextualize this framework within the broader context of quality and patient safety concerns; and to draw together the concerns and recommendations of the various organizations that have been working to improve quality assurance in this area.

Should older and postmenopausal women have access to assisted reproductive technology?

In vitro fertilisation and other assisted reproductive technologies (ART) now enable many women to have children, who would otherwise have remained childless. The most obvious application for these technologies is to help physically infertile, but otherwise healthy young women to have children. However, increasingly, other groups are seeking access to ART to conceive, raising ethical questions about who should be allowed to use these technologies to bear children. In particular, the question of access to ART by lesbian couples and single groups has roused considerable ethical, legal and public debate. This paper examines the perhaps less often considered issue of older and postmenopausal women, who are infertile due to age, using ART to conceive. A range of objections have been made to allowing these women access to ART, including concerns about their ability to care for the child, the risk of birth defects and the 'unnaturalness' of extending childbearing capacity beyond the menopause. This paper examines these objects and provides some responses.

Surrogacy: is there a case for legal prohibition?

Surrogacy arrangements are a complex and challenging issue for legal regulation. On the one hand, if we wish to promote personal autonomy and enable the infertile to experience parenthood, there is a case for allowing these arrangements to proceed. However, objections to legal sanctioning of surrogacy include concerns for the surrogate and the child born through the surrogacy arrangement. Legally sanctioning surrogacy may also adversely affect social conceptions of women's roles or may be considered a form of commodifying women's reproductive capacities. This article examines these challenges to allowing surrogacy, but concludes that surrogacy should not be legally prohibited.

Tissue donation: ethical guidance and legal enforceability.

The legal and ethical framework regulating the use of tissue donated for medical research in Australia provides clear direction on the appropriate use of donated tissue in many instances. However, this article argues that the current framework may be inadequate to address some of the problems that may arise from misuse of such tissue. It argues that the Human Tissue Acts do not provide a sufficiently broad system of regulation and require updating. It also notes that as much of Australian research practice is regulated through ethics guidelines, which do not have the status of law, in some cases this approach may fail to provide remedies for those whose tissue is used inappropriately.