The Legal Landscape for Opioid Treatment Agreements.

Policy Points Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are controversial because of the lack of evidence that their use reduces opioid-related harms and the potential risks they pose of stigmatizing patients and undermining the clinician-patient relationship. Even so, their use is now required in most jurisdictions, and their use is influencing the outcomes of civil and criminal lawsuits. More research is needed to evaluate how OTAs are implemented given existing requirements. If additional research does not resolve the current level of uncertainty regarding OTA benefits, then policymakers in jurisdictions where they are required should consider eliminating OTA mandates or providing flexibility in the legal requirements to make room for clinicians and health care institutions to implement best practices. CONTEXT: Opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) are documents that clinicians present to patients when prescribing opioids that describe the risks of opioids and specify requirements that patients must meet to receive their medication. Notwithstanding a lack of evidence that OTAs effectively mitigate opioids' risks, professional organizations recommend that they be implemented, and jurisdictions increasingly require them. We sought to identify the jurisdictions that require OTAs, how OTAs might affect the outcomes of lawsuits that arise when things go wrong, and instances in which the law permits flexibility for clinicians and health care institutions to adopt best practices. METHODS: We surveyed the laws and regulations of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to identify which jurisdictions require the use of OTAs, the circumstances in which OTA use is mandatory, and the terms OTAs must include (if any). We also surveyed criminal and civil judicial decisions in which OTAs were discussed as evidence on which a court relied to make its decision to determine how OTA use influences litigation outcomes. FINDINGS: Results show that a slight majority (27) of jurisdictions now require OTAs. With one exception, the jurisdictions' requirements for OTA use are triggered at least in part by long-term prescribing. There is otherwise substantial variation and flexibility within OTA requirements. Results also show that even in jurisdictions where OTA use is not required by statute or regulation, OTA use can inform courts' reasoning in lawsuits involving patients or clinicians. Sometimes, but not always, OTA use legally protects clinicians from liability. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that OTA use is entwined with legal obligations in various ways. Clinicians and health care institutions should identify ways for OTAs to enhance clinician-patient relationships and patient care within the bounds of relevant legal requirements and risks.

Clinician Perspectives on Opioid Treatment Agreements: A Qualitative Analysis of Focus Groups.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic pain face significant barriers in finding clinicians to manage long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). For patients on LTOT, it is increasingly common to have them sign opioid treatment agreements (OTAs). OTAs enumerate the risks of opioids, as informed consent documents would, but also the requirements that patients must meet to receive LTOT. While there has been an ongoing scholarly discussion about the practical and ethical implications of OTA use in the abstract, little is known about how clinicians use them and if OTAs themselves modify clinician prescribing practices. OBJECTIVE: To determine how clinicians use OTAs and the potential impacts of OTAs on opioid prescribing. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative analysis of four focus groups of clinicians from a large Midwestern academic medical center. Groups were organized according to self-identified prescribing patterns: two groups for clinicians who identified as prescribers of LTOT, and two who did not. PARTICIPANTS: 17 clinicians from General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Palliative Care were recruited using purposive, convenience sampling. APPROACH: Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using reflexive thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team. KEY RESULTS: Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) OTAs did not influence clinicians' decisions whether to use LTOT generally but did shape clinical decision-making for individual patients; (2) clinicians feel OTAs intensify the power they have over patients, though this was not uniformly judged as harmful; (3) there is a potential misalignment between the intended purposes of OTAs and their implementation. CONCLUSION: This study reveals a complicated relationship between OTAs and access to pain management. While OTAs seem not to impact the clinicians' decisions about whether to use LTOT generally, they do sometimes influence prescribing decisions for individual patients. Clinicians shared complex views about OTAs' purposes, which shows the need for more clarity about how OTAs could be used to promote shared decision-making, joint accountability, informed consent, and patient education.

Identifying the Molecular Drivers of Pathogenic Aldehyde Dehydrogenase Missense Mutations in Cancer and Non-Cancer Diseases.

Human aldehyde dehydrogenases (ALDHs) comprising 19 isoenzymes play a vital role on both endogenous and exogenous aldehyde metabolism. This NAD(P)-dependent catalytic process relies on the intact structural and functional activity of the cofactor binding, substrate interaction, and the oligomerization of ALDHs. Disruptions on the activity of ALDHs, however, could result in the accumulation of cytotoxic aldehydes, which have been linked with a wide range of diseases, including both cancers as well as neurological and developmental disorders. In our previous works, we have successfully characterised the structure-function relationships of the missense variants of other proteins. We, therefore, applied a similar analysis pipeline to identify potential molecular drivers of pathogenic ALDH missense mutations. Variants data were first carefully curated and labelled as cancer-risk, non-cancer diseases, and benign. We then leveraged various computational biophysical methods to describe the changes caused by missense mutations, informing a bias of detrimental mutations with destabilising effects. Cooperating with these insights, several machine learning approaches were further utilised to investigate the combination of features, revealing the necessity of the conservation of ALDHs. Our work aims to provide important biological perspectives on pathogenic consequences of missense mutations of ALDHs, which could be invaluable resources in the development of cancer treatment.

Supported Decision-Making: Non-Domination Rather than Mental Prosthesis.

Recently, bioethicists and the UNCRPD have advocated for supported medical decision-making on behalf of patients with intellectual disabilities. But what does supported decision-making really entail? One compelling framework is Anita Silvers and Leslie Francis' mental prosthesis account, which envisions supported decision-making as a process in which trustees act as mere appendages for the patient's will; the trustee provides the cognitive tools the patient requires to realize her conception of her own good. We argue that supported decision-making would be better understood as a collaborative process, giving patients with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to make decisions in a respectful relationship with trusted others. We offer an alternative account of supported decision-making where the primary constraint is to protect the patient from domination by the trustee. This is advantageous in its preservation of the prospects for genuine collaboration, for the mental prosthesis approach ultimately reinforces a problematic ideal of isolated patient self-determination.

Surrogate Perspectives on Patient Preference Predictors: Good Idea, but I Should Decide How They Are Used.

Current practice frequently fails to provide care consistent with the preferences of decisionally-incapacitated patients. It also imposes significant emotional burden on their surrogates. Algorithmic-based patient preference predictors (PPPs) have been proposed as a possible way to address these two concerns. While previous research found that patients strongly support the use of PPPs, the views of surrogates are unknown. The present study thus assessed the views of experienced surrogates regarding the possible use of PPPs as a means to help make treatment decisions for decisionally-incapacitated patients.This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to determine the views of experienced surrogates [n = 26] who were identified from two academic medical centers and two community hospitals. The primary outcomes were respondents' overall level of support for the idea of using PPPs and the themes related to their views on how a PPP should be used, if at all, in practice.Overall, 21 participants supported the idea of using PPPs. The remaining five indicated that they would not use a PPP because they made decisions based on the patient's best interests, not based on substituted judgment. Major themes which emerged were that surrogates, not the patient's preferences, should determine how treatment decisions are made, and concern that PPPs might be used to deny expensive care or be biased against minority groups.Surrogates, like patients, strongly support the idea of using PPPs to help make treatment decisions for decisionally-incapacitated patients. These findings provide support for developing a PPP and assessing it in practice. At the same time, patients and surrogates disagree over whose preferences should determine how treatment decisions are made, including whether to use a PPP. These findings reveal a fundamental disagreement regarding the guiding principles for surrogate decision-making. Future research is needed to assess this disagreement and consider ways to address it.

E-Cigarettes and the Multiple Responsibilities of the FDA.

This paper considers the responsibilities of the FDA with regard to disseminating information about the benefits and harms of e-cigarettes. Tobacco harm reduction advocates claim that the FDA has been overcautious and has violated ethical obligations by failing to clearly communicate to the public that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than cigarettes. We argue, by contrast, that the FDA's obligations in this arena are more complex than they may appear at first blush. Though the FDA is accountable for informing the public about the health risks and benefits of products it regulates, it also has other roles (and attendant responsibilities) that inform when and how it should disseminate information. In addition to being a knowledge purveyor, it is also a knowledge producer, an advisor to the public, and a practical agent shaping the material conditions in which people make health-related choices. In our view, those other roles call for caution in the way the FDA interprets and communicates the available evidence.

Human body donation: How informed are the donors?

Deceased human bodies are donated for education and research. Informed consent has become the standard for research on the living. A question could be asked on how informed are the donors and their families about the process before this generous gift is given. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the published donation forms used by body donation programs in the United States and assess them according to the guidelines published by the American Association of Clinical Anatomists. The findings of this study shows that the level of information given to donors and families, before consenting to whole body donation, varies greatly throughout the United States. Many of the forms fail to include the recommendations made by professional societies. Additional information needs to be added to whole body donation forms to better inform donors and families about the donation process, what happens to the body, and the final disposition of the bodies once studies are completed. Overall, it was concluded that in some cases consent is being obtained but much more needs to be done before institutions can claim to obtain informed consent.

'First Do No Harm': physician discretion, racial disparities and opioid treatment agreements.

The increasing use of opioid treatment agreements (OTAs) has prompted debate within the medical community about ethical challenges with respect to their implementation. The focus of debate is usually on the efficacy of OTAs at reducing opioid misuse, how OTAs may undermine trust between physicians and patients and the potential coercive nature of requiring patients to sign such agreements as a condition for receiving pain care. An important consideration missing from these conversations is the potential for racial bias in the current way that OTAs are incorporated into clinical practice and in the amount of physician discretion that current opioid guidelines support. While the use of OTAs has become mandatory in some states for certain classes of patients, physicians are still afforded great leeway in how these OTAs are implemented in clinical practice and how their terms should be enforced. This paper uses the guidelines provided for OTA implementation by the states of Indiana and Pennsylvania as case studies in order to argue that giving physicians certain kinds of discretion may exacerbate racial health disparities. This problem cannot simply be addressed by minimising physician discretion in general, but rather by providing mechanisms to hold physicians accountable for how they treat patients on long-term opioid therapy to ensure that such treatment is equitable.

Civil Disobedience, Not Merely Conscientious Objection, In Medicine.

Those arguing that conscientious objection in medicine should be declared unethical by professional societies face the following challenge: conscientious objection can function as an important reforming mechanism when it involves health care workers refusing to participate in certain medical interventions deemed standard of care and legally sanctioned but which undermine patients' rights. In such cases, the argument goes, far from being unethical, conscientious objection may actually be a professional duty. I examine this sort of challenge and ultimately argue that these acts of conscience done in the interest of reforming professional norms or medical regulations are best understood as episodes of civil disobedience rather than episodes of conscientious objection. In contrast to the private, exempting nature of conscientious objection, civil disobedience is a public breach of a norm or law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in governmental policies or professional standards. Consequently, clinicians may have a duty to engage in civil disobedience even while professional societies are right to declare limitations on the ethical appropriateness of conscientious objection.

Reconsidering the Need for Reconsent at 18.

The prevalence of research with biological specimens has led to a debate over what type of consent is needed to obtain biological specimens from minors and store them for future studies. In most cases, parental permission is needed to obtain samples from minors. In addition, almost all commentators and guidelines maintain that researchers need the consent of the donors if they want to continue to store the samples and make them available for future studies after the donors reach the age of majority. In this Ethics Rounds, we argue that this near-consensus view is mistaken on the grounds that the agreement of the parents at the time of obtaining samples provides sufficient permission to store them and use them in research even after the donors turn 18 years old.

'Hey everybody, don't get pregnant': Zika, WHO and an ethical framework for advising.

WHO recently issued new guidance on the prevention of sexual transmission of Zika virus. The updated guidance states that '[c]ountry health programmes should ensure that… [i]n order to prevent adverse pregnancy and fetal outcomes, men and women of reproductive age, living in areas where local transmission of Zika virus is known to occur, be correctly informed and oriented to consider delaying pregnancy'. While the media has reported this advice as WHO telling couples in Zika-affected regions to avoid pregnancy, WHO states that they are not doing that. In an interview with the New York Times, a spokesperson from WHO stated, 'it's important to understand that this is not WHO saying, "Hey everybody, don't get pregnant." It's that they should be advised about this, so they themselves can make the final decision'. In this statement, the WHO's spokesperson distinguishes between actively directing individuals to delay pregnancy and advising them, which is portrayed as a merely informative act that facilitates but does not direct an individual's final decision. This paper proposes that advising should not be understood as a purely informational and non-directive act. The choices that agencies make in what advice to offer and to whom to offer the advice are ethical choices with practical implications. We will thus lay out a framework for considering the ethical issues that arise in the context of advising and demonstrate how it can be used to evaluate the WHO guidance.

Can Unmanned Aerial Systems (Drones) Be Used for the Routine Transport of Chemistry, Hematology, and Coagulation Laboratory Specimens?

BACKGROUND: Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS or drones) could potentially be used for the routine transport of small goods such as diagnostic clinical laboratory specimens. To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study of the impact of UAS transportation on laboratory tests. METHODS: Three paired samples were obtained from each one of 56 adult volunteers in a single phlebotomy event (336 samples total): two tubes each for chemistry, hematology, and coagulation testing respectively. 168 samples were driven to the flight field and held stationary. The other 168 samples were flown in the UAS for a range of times, from 6 to 38 minutes. After the flight, 33 of the most common chemistry, hematology, and coagulation tests were performed. Statistical methods as well as performance criteria from four distinct clinical, academic, and regulatory bodies were used to evaluate the results. RESULTS: Results from flown and stationary sample pairs were similar for all 33 analytes. Bias and intercepts were <10% and <13% respectively for all analytes. Bland-Altman comparisons showed a mean difference of 3.2% for Glucose and <1% for other analytes. Only bicarbonate did not meet the strictest (Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program) performance criteria. This was due to poor precision rather than bias. There were no systematic differences between laboratory-derived (analytic) CV's and the CV's of our flown versus terrestrial sample pairs however CV's from the sample pairs tended to be slightly higher than analytic CV's. The overall concordance, based on clinical stratification (normal versus abnormal), was 97%. Length of flight had no impact on the results. CONCLUSIONS: Transportation of laboratory specimens via small UASs does not affect the accuracy of routine chemistry, hematology, and coagulation tests results from selfsame samples. However it results in slightly poorer precision for some analytes.