Questions Care Providers Should Ask When They Have Ethical Discretion.

AbstractSince some care providers give colleagues' interests priority over patients' and families', they are at risk of imposing their bias on patients without knowing this. In this piece I discuss how the risk increases when care providers have greater discretion and how they can best avoid this risk. I discuss identifying these situations, assessing them, and then, based on what they have concluded, intervening and use their having inadequate resources, their seeing what patients want as futile, and their making decisions regarding surrogate decision makers as paradigmatic examples. As "remedies," I suggest that care providers share with patients their rationales, validate adaptive aspects of difficult behaviors, self-disclose, and sometimes even go beyond their usual clinical practices.

Putting ethics and clinical decision making before politics: requiring COVID-19 immunization for Solid Organ Transplantation (SOT) Candidates and their Support Team.

We recommend that vaccination for COVID-19 should be a requirement for waitlist activation for solid organ transplant (SOT). We also recommend that such vaccination be required of the primary member of the in-home support team. We argue that these requirements are consistent with current standard practices that draw on a well-established ethical framework. As a result, these recommendations should be easily received and are only controversial owing to the inflamed and politicized state of public discourse.

Medical Ethics, Moral Courage, and the Embrace of Fallibility.

Experts have an obligation to make difficult decisions rather than offloading these decisions onto others who may be less well equipped to make them. This commentary considers this obligation through the lens of drafting critical care rationing protocols to address COVID-19-induced scarcity. The author recalls her own experience as a member of multiple groups charged with the generation of protocols for how hospitals and states should ration critical care resources like ventilators and intensive care unit beds, in the event that there would not be enough to go around as the COVID-19 pandemic intensified. She identifies several obvious lessons learned through this process, including the need to combat the pervasive effects of racism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination; to enhance the diversity, equity, and inclusion built into the process of drafting rationing protocols; and to embrace transparency, including acknowledging failings and fallibility. She also comes to a more complicated conclusion: Individuals in a position of authority, such as medical ethicists, have a moral obligation to embrace assertion, even when such assertions may well turn out to be wrong. She notes that when the decision-making process is grounded in legitimacy, medical ethics must have the moral courage to embrace fallibility.

[Cancer in children with intellectual disabilities: Questioning and ethical issues]. / Cancer chez un enfant porteur de handicap intellectuel : questionnement et enjeux éthiques.

The Parents and Caregivers group in the face of ethics in pediatrics of the Île-de-France Ethics Area wondered about the association of the words Disability and Cancer by focusing on the study of the course of children with intellectual disability, treated for cancer. These situations are exceptional, the number of cases in France must not be more than fifty per year. We gathered the testimony of five families of children using a semi-directive survey taking up the journey from birth, announcement of the handicap, the diagnosis of cancer and its treatment. The verbatim show that each story is unique and rich in lessons, despite the feeling of "double penalty": "He did not deserve this, a handicap plus cancer is a lot for one person", "the shot moreover." A healthcare team was also interviewed and raised an additional question: "First, the double penalty… then, what's the point?" Through these testimonies, we sought to question the ethical principles of care, which can be shaken up in these extraordinary supported.

[Ethical stakes in palliative care in radiation oncology]. / Enjeux éthiques de la pratique des soins à visée palliative en oncologie radiothérapique.

In 2021, the Ethics Commission of the SFRO has chosen the issue of the practice of palliative care in radiotherapy oncology. Radiation oncology plays a central role in the care of patients with cancer in palliative phase. But behind the broad name of palliative radiotherapy, we actually find a large variety of situations involving diverse ethical issues. Radiation oncologists have the delicate task to take into account multiple factors throughout a complex decision-making process. While the question of the therapeutic indication and the technical choice allowing it to be implemented remains central, reflection cannot be limited to these decision-making and technical aspects alone. It is also a question of being able to create the conditions for a singularity focused care and to build an authentic care relationship, beyond technicity. It is through this daily ethical work, in close collaboration with patients, and under essential conditions of multidisciplinarity and multiprofessionalism, that our fundamental role as caregiver can be deployed.

Does radiology require informed consent for radiation risk?

Recent trends in medical decision-making have moved from paternalistic doctor-patient relations to shared decision-making. Informed consent is fundamental to this process and to ensuring patients' ongoing trust in the health-care profession. It cannot be assumed that patients consent to the risk associated with medical exposures, unless they have been provided with the information to make that decision. This position is supported by both the legal and ethical framework around Radiation Protection detailed in this commentary.

Project Inclusive Genetics: Exploring the impact of patient-centered counseling training on physical disability bias in the prenatal setting.

PURPOSE: There is robust research examining the negative impact of racial and socioeconomic implicit bias on healthcare provider clinical decision-making. However, other under-studied important biases are likely to impact clinical care as well. The goal of this study was to explore the presence of bias against people with physical disability among a heterogeneous group of healthcare workers and trainees and to evaluate the effect of implicit association testing and an educational module on this bias. METHOD: The study was composed of a one-hour web-based survey and educational module. The survey included an explicit disability bias assessment, disability Implicit Association Tests (IATs), demographic collection, and pre- and post- module clinical vignettes of prenatal patient scenarios. In addition to providing counseling to hypothetical patients, participants also indicated their personal preferences on genetic testing and termination. The educational module focused on the principles of patient-centered counseling. RESULTS: The collected data reflects responses from 335 participants. Within this sample, there were both explicit and implicit biases towards individuals with physical disabilities. Prior to the IAT and educational module, when respondents were tasked with providing genetic testing recommendations, implicit biases and personal preferences for genetic testing and termination influenced respondents' clinical recommendations. Importantly, having previous professional experience with individuals with disabilities diminished biased clinical recommendations prior to the intervention. In response to the IAT and educational intervention, the effect of implicit bias and personal preferences on clinical recommendations decreased. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates how bias against a marginalized group exists within the medical community and that personal opinions can impact clinical counseling. Importantly, our findings suggest that there are strategies that can be easily implemented into curricula to address disability bias, including formal educational interventions and the addition of professional experiences into healthcare professional training programs.

Treatment outcomes in patients with laryngotracheal lesions and compromised airway during and prior to the coronovirus disease 2019 pandemic: a tertiary institution's experience.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes in patients with laryngeal and tracheal stenosis treated during and prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic period. METHOD: Patients treated for laryngotracheal lesions with impending airway compromise during the active pandemic period were matched with those treated for similar lesions in the preceding years in a monocentric tertiary hospital setting. RESULTS: During the pandemic period of 55 days, 31 patients underwent 47 procedures. Seven patients (2 children, 5 adults) had open airway surgery, and one had an operation-specific complication. Twenty-four patients (10 children, 14 adults) underwent 40 endoscopic interventions without any complications. Operation specific results during and prior to the pandemic were comparable. CONCLUSION: The management strategy in patients with laryngotracheal lesions and impending airway compromise should not be altered during periods of risk from coronavirus disease 2019. Avoiding a tracheostomy by performing primary corrective surgery or proceeding with a definitive decannulation would be beneficial in these patients to reduce the risk of contagion.

Life-sustaining treatment decisions in pediatric intensive care: an Italian survey on ethical concerns.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how life-sustaining treatment (LST) decisions are made and identify problematic ethical concerns confronted by physicians and nurses in pediatric intensive care within Italy. METHODS: An 88-question online survey was created, based on a previous qualitative study conducted by this team. The survey was designed to identify how LST decisions were managed; contrasting actual practices with what participants think practices should be. Replies from physicians and nurses were compared, to identify potential inter-professional ethical tensions. The study also identified participants' principal ethical concerns. Moreover, open-ended questions elicited qualitative perspectives on participants' views. The survey was pilot-tested and refined before initiation of the study. RESULTS: 31 physicians and 65 nurses participated in the study. Participants were recruited from pediatric intensive care units across five Italian cities; i.e., Florence, Milan, Padua, Rome, Verona. Statistically significant differences were identified for (a) virtually all questions contrasting actual practices with what participants think practices should be and (b) 14 questions contrasting physician replies with those of nurses. Physicians and nurses identified the absence of legislative standards for LST withdrawal as a highly problematic ethical concern. Physicians also identified bearing responsibility for LST decisions as a major concern. Qualitative descriptions further demonstrated that these Italian pediatric intensive care clinicians encounter significantly distressing ethical problems in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight a need for the development of (a) strategies for improving team processes regarding LST decisions, so they can be better aligned with how clinicians think decisions should be made, and (b) Italian LST decision-making standards that can help ensure optimal ethical practices.

The need to show minimum clinically important differences in Alzheimer's disease trials.

Deciding on the smallest change in an outcome that constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect (ie, the minimum clinically important difference [MCID]) is fundamental to interpreting clinical trial outcomes, making clinical decisions, and designing studies with sufficient statistical power to detect any such effect. There is no consensus on MCIDs for outcomes in Alzheimer's disease trials, but the US Food and Drug Administration's consideration of aducanumab clinical trials data has exposed the uncertainty of the clinical meaning of statistically significant but small improvements. Although MCIDs for outcomes, including Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes and Mini-Mental State Examination in Alzheimer's disease have been reported, the Food and Drug Administration's guidelines, drafted in 1989 to facilitate regulatory approval of substantially effective antidementia drugs, do not specify quantified minimum differences. Although it is important that regulatory requirements encourage drug development and approval, without MCIDs, sponsors are motivated to power trials to detect statistical significance for only small and potentially inconsequential effects on clinical outcomes. MCIDs benefit patients, family members, caregivers, and health-care systems and should be incorporated into clinical trials and drug development guidance for Alzheimer's disease.

Frequency and Severity of Moral Distress in Nephrology Fellows: A National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Moral distress is a negative affective response to a situation in which one is compelled to act in a way that conflicts with one's values. Little is known about the workplace scenarios that elicit moral distress in nephrology fellows. METHODS: We sent a moral distress survey to 148 nephrology fellowship directors with a request to forward it to their fellows. Using a 5-point (0-4) scale, fellows rated both the frequency (never to very frequently) and severity (not at all disturbing to very disturbing) of commonly encountered workplace scenarios. Ratings of ≥3 were used to define "frequent" and "moderate-to-severe" moral distress. RESULTS: The survey was forwarded by 64 fellowship directors to 386 fellows, 142 of whom (37%) responded. Their mean age was 33 ± 3.6 years and 43% were female. The scenarios that most commonly elicited moderate to severe moral distress were initiating dialysis in situations that the fellow considered futile (77%), continuing dialysis in a hopelessly ill patient (81%) and carrying a high patient census (75%), and observing other providers giving overly optimistic descriptions of the benefits of dialysis (64%). Approximately 27% had considered quitting fellowship during training, including 9% at the time of survey completion. CONCLUSION: A substantial majority of nephrology trainees experienced moral distress of moderate to severe intensity, mainly related to the futile treatment of hopelessly ill patients. Efforts to reduce moral distress in trainees are required.

Ethical Considerations in Chemotherapy and Vaccines in Cancer Patients in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 situation is a worldwide health emergency with strong implications in clinical oncology. In this viewpoint, we address two crucial dilemmas from the ethical dimension: (1) Is it ethical to postpone or suspend cancer treatments which offer a statistically significant benefit in quality of life and survival in cancer patients during this time of pandemic?; (2) Should we vaccinate cancer patients against COVID-19 if scientific studies have not included this subgroup of patients? Regarding the first question, the best available evidence applied to the ethical principles of Beauchamp and Childress shows that treatments (such as chemotherapy) with clinical benefit are fair and beneficial. Indeed, the suspension or delay of such treatments should be considered malefic. Regarding the second question, applying the doctrine of double-effect, we show that the potential beneficial effect of vaccines in the population with cancer (or those one that has had cancer) is much higher than the potential adverse effects of these vaccines. In addition, there is no better and less harmful known solution.

Marginal parent donors-Process and ethics.

BACKGROUND: Pre-emptive kidney transplantation for end-stage kidney disease in children has many advantages and may lead to the consideration of marginal parent donors. METHODS: Using the example of the transplant of a kidney with medullary sponge disease from a parent to the child, we review the ethical framework for working up such donors. RESULTS: The four principles of health ethics include autonomy (the right of the patient to retain control over his/her own body); beneficence (healthcare providers must do all they can do to benefit the patient in each situation); non-maleficence ("first do no harm"-providers must consider whether other people or society could be harmed by a decision made, even if it is made for the benefit of an individual patient) and justice (there should be an element of fairness in all medical decisions). Highly motivated donors may derive significant psychological benefit from their donation and may thus be willing to incur more risk. The transplantation team and, ideally, an independent donor advocate team must make a judgment about the acceptability of the risk-benefit ratio for particular potential donors, who must also make their own assessment. The transplantation team and donor advocate team must be comfortable with the risk-benefit ratio before proceeding. CONCLUSIONS: An independent donor advocacy team that focuses on the donor needs is needed with sufficient multidisciplinary ethical, social, and psychological expertise. The decision to accept or reject the donor should be within the authority of the independent donor advocacy team and not the providers or the donor.

[Intellectual disability and cancer in children: An analysis of the decision-making process]. / Déficience intellectuelle et cancer chez l'enfant : analyse des pratiques concernant le choix du traitement.

AIM: The aim was to describe and to analyze the ethics of decision-making in situations involving children with intellectual disability and cancer, from the referent-doctor's point-of-view, in pediatric oncology units in France. METHODS: Pediatricians working in pediatric oncology units were interviewed through an online questionnaire and a semi-directive interview was systematically proposed. We analyzed the ethical issues that arose during the process of decision-making and we made suggestions in order to address them. RESULTS: Sixteen doctors reported twenty-one clinical cases. Of these cases, one third of the children had a change in their oncologic treatment, with a risk of pejorative outcome on the prognosis. Despite the fact that ethical issues appeared in 80 % of the cases, there were few consultations with ethical committees. Decision-making process showed no difference compared to children without intellectual disability, thus raising ethical issues in the medical team. Our study showed discrepancy between frequently reported ethical issues, high consensus rate regarding treatment decision and lack of consultation with ethical committees. DISCUSSION: We propose three steps to guide the decision-making process in situations involving children with intellectual disability and cancer: 1/deeper understanding of the child through reinforced interactions with their caregivers, 2/better cross-boundary discussions, to improve the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary staff, and 3/more systematic ethical committees consultation.