Developing rights-based standards for children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions: using a collaborative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder approach to build consensus.

Children continue to experience harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. The international ISupport collaboration aimed to develop standards to outline and explain good procedural practice and the rights of children within the context of a clinical procedure. The rights-based standards for children undergoing tests, treatments, investigations, examinations and interventions were developed using an iterative, multi-phased, multi-method and multi-stakeholder consensus building approach. This consensus approach used a range of online and face to face methods across three phases to ensure ongoing engagement with multiple stakeholders. The views and perspectives of 203 children and young people, 78 parents and 418 multi-disciplinary professionals gathered over a two year period (2020-2022) informed the development of international rights-based standards for the care of children having tests, treatments, examinations and interventions. The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.    Conclusion: This is the first study of its kind which outlines international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. The standards offer health professionals and educators clear evidence-based tools to support discussions and practice changes to challenge prevailing assumptions about holding or restraining children and instead encourage a focus on the interests and rights of the child. What is Known: • Children continue to experience short and long-term harm when undergoing clinical procedures despite increased evidence of the need to improve the provision of child-centred care. • Professionals report uncertainty and tensions in applying evidence-based practice to children's procedural care. What is New: • This is the first study of its kind which has developed international rights-based procedural care standards from multi-stakeholder perspectives. • The standards are the first to reach international multi-stakeholder consensus on definitions of supportive and restraining holds.

Off-Label Prescription of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children: Clinical, Ethical, and Legal Issues.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the biologics license application for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (Comirnaty) on August 23, 2021, opened the door to the off-label vaccination of children younger than the age range currently covered by either the biologics license application (16 years old and older) or the emergency use authorization (12 to 15 years old). Although prescribing medications at doses, for conditions, or in populations other than those approved by the FDA is generally legal and is common in pediatrics, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended against off-label prescription of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Several commentaries consider a case in which parents ask their child's pediatrician to prescribe the vaccine for their 11-year-old with special health care needs before approval or authorization in her age group. The first commentary considers the potential benefits and risks to the patient, as well as to the family, the provider, and society, emphasizing the unknown risks in younger patients and the need for adequate informed consent. The second commentary describes an algorithm and principles for evaluating off-label prescribing and argues that the current benefits of prescribing Comirnaty off label to children <12 do not outweigh the risks. The third commentary addresses ethical and legal issues, ultimately calling on federal agencies to remove legal barriers to making the vaccine available to children in age groups that currently lack authorization.

Ethical and Social Values for Paediatric Health Technology Assessment and Drug Policy.

BACKGROUND: Public policy approaches to funding paediatric medicines in advanced health systems remain understudied. In particular, the ethical and social values dimensions of health technology assessment (HTA) and drug coverage decisions for children have received almost no attention in research or policy. METHODS: To elicit and understand the social values that influence decision-making for public funding of paediatric drugs, we undertook a series of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a stratified purposive sample (n = 22) of stakeholders involved with or affected by drug funding decisions for children at the provincial (Ontario) and national levels in Canada. Constructivist grounded theory methodology guided data collection and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our study provides empirical evidence about the unique ethical and social values dimensions of HTA for children, and describes a novel social values typology for paediatric drug policy decision-making. Three principal categories of values emerged from stakeholder reflections on HTA and drug policy-making for children: procedural values, structural values, and sociocultural values. Key findings include the importance of attention to the procedural legitimacy of HTA for children, with emphasis on the inclusion of child health voices in processes of technology appraisal and policy uptake; a role for HTA institutions to consider the equity impacts of technologies, both in setting review priorities and in assessing the value of technologies for public coverage; and the potential benefits of a distinct national framework to guide drug policy for children. CONCLUSION: Current approaches to HTA are not well designed for the realities of child health and illness, nor the societal priorities regarding children that our study identified. This research generates new knowledge to inform decision-making on paediatric drugs by HTA institutions and government payers in Canada and other publicly-funded health systems, through insights into the relevant social values for child drug funding decisions from varied stakeholder groups.

Ethical and Professional Considerations in Integrated Behavioral Health.

Integrated behavioral health models of care offer many benefits for patient experience and outcomes. However, multidisciplinary teams are comprised of professionals who each may have different professional norms and ethical obligations, which may at times be in conflict. This article offers a framework for negotiating potential conflicts between professional norms and expectations across disciplines involved in integrated behavioral health teams.

New ethical challenges in the management of rare pediatric diseases with innovative therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Rare diseases, despite their low individual prevalence, affect a large number of children. Their management has considerably improved recently due to new treatments, modifying the diseases evolution without being totally curative. Since this raises many ethical dilemmas, we present a study about respecting the principles of medical ethics in the management of rare diseases in pediatrics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a qualitative study in a French pediatric neurology department. In our study, we included health caregivers and parents of children being monitored for rare diseases and benefiting from innovative therapies. We conducted semi-structured interviews and, after transcription, we performed computerized and manual analysis. RESULTS: A total of 26 participants were included. Six main themes were addressed: rare diseases, science and medical research, general disease management, specific innovative treatments, neonatal screening, and cost of these treatments. Discussions centered on the children. Particular importance was given to the notions of information and the physician/family relationship. A major place is given to the treatment objectives and the improvement of quality of life. We also noted a sense of satisfaction with the current overall management of these diseases. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that our current practice, including the use of innovative therapies, respects the four main ethical principles, from the points of view of both caregivers and parents.

Relational, Emotional, and Pragmatic Attributes of Ethics Consultations at a Children's Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric ethics consultations are important but understudied, with little known about consultations' contextual attributes, which may influence how ethically problematic situations are perceived and addressed. METHODS: We analyzed data regarding 245 pediatric clinical ethics consultations performed between 2013 and 2018 at a large children's hospital. Prespecified data elements included 17 core problematic issues that initiate consultations, 9 ethical considerations identified by the consultation service, and 7 relational, emotional, and pragmatic contextual attributes of the consultation. The main process measure was the cumulative consultation process, ranging from one-on-one discussions with the requestor, to meeting with the clinical team, separate meetings with the patient or family and the clinical team, or combined meeting with the patient or family and the clinical team. RESULTS: The most-prevalent core problematic issues were intensity or limitation of treatment (38.8%) and treatment adherence and refusal (31%). Common pertinent ethical considerations were best interest (79.2%), benefits versus harms of treatment (51%), and autonomy and decision-making (46.5%). A total of 39.2% of consults culminated with a meeting with the clinical team, 9.4% with separate meetings, and 8.2% with a meeting with all parties. Common contextual attributes were discord (43.3%), acknowledged dilemma (33.5%), and articulate disagreement (29.8%). In exploratory analyses, specific contextual attributes were associated with the core problematic issue that initiated the consultation and with how the consultative process culminated. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric ethics consultations have contextual attributes that in exploratory analyses are associated with specific types of problems and, to a lesser degree, with the cumulative ethics consultation process.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine testing and trials in the pediatric population: biologic, ethical, research, and implementation challenges.

As the nation implements SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults at an unprecedented scale, it is now essential to focus on the prospect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in pediatric populations. To date, no children younger than 12 years have been enrolled in clinical trials. Key challenges and knowledge gaps that must be addressed include (1) rationale for vaccines in children, (2) possible effects of immune maturation during childhood, (3) ethical concerns, (4) unique needs of children with developmental disorders and chronic conditions, (5) health inequities, and (6) vaccine hesitancy. Because COVID-19 is minimally symptomatic in the vast majority of children, a higher acceptable risk threshold is required when evaluating pediatric clinical trials. Profound differences in innate and adaptive immunity during childhood and adolescence are known to affect vaccine responsiveness for a variety of childhood diseases. COVID-19 and the accompanying social disruption, such as the school shutdowns, has been disproportionately damaging to minority and low-income children. In this commentary, we briefly address each of these key issues, specify research gaps, and suggest a broader learning health system approach to accelerate testing and clinical trial development for an ethical and effective strategy to implement a pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as rapidly and safely as possible. IMPACT: As the US begins an unprecedented implementation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, substantial knowledge gaps have yet to be addressed regarding vaccinations in the pediatric population. Maturational changes in the immune system during childhood have influenced the effectiveness of pediatric vaccines for other diseases and conditions, and could affect SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responsiveness in children. Given that COVID-19 disease is far milder in the majority of children than in adults, the risk-benefit of a pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine must be carefully weighed. The needs of children with developmental disabilities and with chronic disease must be addressed. Minority and low-income children have been disproportionately adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; care must be taken to address issues of health equity regarding pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials and allocation. Research and strategies to address general vaccine hesitancy in communities must be addressed in the context of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Breaking bad news: what parents would like you to know.

OBJECTIVE: Breaking bad news about life-threatening and possibly terminal conditions is a crucial part of paediatric care for children in this situation. Little is known about how the parents of children with life-threatening conditions experience communication of bad news. The objective of this study is to analyse parents' experiences (barriers and facilitators) of communication of bad news. DESIGN: A qualitative study consisting of a constant comparative analysis of in-depth interviews conducted with parents. SETTING: The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-four parents-bereaved and non-bereaved-of 44 children (aged 1-12 years, 61% deceased) with a life-threatening condition. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Based on parents' experiences, the following 10 barriers to the communication of bad news were identified: (1) a lack of (timely) communication, (2) physicians' failure to ask parents for input, (3) parents feel unprepared during and after the conversation, (4) a lack of clarity about future treatment, (5) physicians' failure to voice uncertainties, (6) physicians' failure to schedule follow-up conversations, (7) presence of too many or unknown healthcare professionals, (8) parental concerns in breaking bad news to children, (9) managing indications of bad news in non-conversational contexts, and (10) parents' misunderstanding of medical terminology. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows healthcare professionals how parents experience barriers in bad news conversations. This mainly concerns practical aspects of communication. The results provide practical pointers on how the communication of bad news can be improved to better suit the needs of parents. From the parents' perspective, the timing of conversations in which they were informed that their child might not survive was far too late. Sometimes, no such conversations ever took place.

Ethical aspects in the care of a child with infantile spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

The pediatrician has a privileged relationship with a child with infantile spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). At all times, he/she must be the child's mentor, promoting a comprehensive approach and support in order to ensure the best possible solution for the patient's autonomy. In all circumstances, an ethical stance is essential. After a reminder on the notions of ethics of care, we will address various ethical questions encountered through three critical situations during the care of a child with infantile spinal muscular atrophy: the announcement of the diagnosis, the transmission of information on innovative therapies, and palliative care and end-of-life support. © 2020 French Society of Pediatrics. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Bioética en tiempos de pandemia / Bioethics in times of pandemic

Las estadísticas arrojadas por la pandemia de COVID-19 evidencian que el impacto sobre la población pediátrica no ha tenido la magnitud mostrada en los adultos. Aun así, tanto para los pediatras como para el resto de los integrantes de los equipos de salud, se plantea un dilema entre el mantenimiento de la responsabilidad, el compromiso en la atención de los pacientes afectados y las dudas e incertidumbres surgidas frente a la posibilidad de contraer la enfermedad y de trasmitirla a los seres más cercanos. Desde allí, se estructuran dos cuestiones centrales: ¿existe un límite moral frente a la posibilidad de correr riesgos durante el ejercicio profesional?, ¿qué influencia tiene la dificultad de acceso a mecanismos de protección imprescindibles para disminuir los riesgos que aquel implica? Consideramos que la bioética puede actuar como una herramienta que permita reflexionar sobre estos y otros aspectos a los que la actual pandemia nos enfrenta

It has been demonstrated by statistics that COVID-19 pandemic has not been as aggressive among pediatric population as in adults. Yet, pediatricians and the rest of the health care team face the dilemma of keeping the commitment and responsibilities towards the patients or withstanding the uncertainties arising versus the possibilities of getting infected and spreading it to their beloved ones.There are two main issues: during the professional everyday practice, is there a moral limit when it comes to taking risks? And what is the importance of having difficulty in getting the proper safety equipment in order to decrease the potential risks? Bioethics, as we think, may work as a tool, helping us all to ponder this and the many other bearings we are facing with the current pandemic

Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI) of Responsible Data Sharing Involving Children in Genomics: A Systematic Literature Review of Reasons.

BACKGROUND: Progress in precision medicine relies on the access to, use of, and exchange of genomic and associated clinical data, including from children. The ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) of such data access, use, and exchange may be accentuated in the pediatric context due in part to the highly sensitive nature of genomic data, children's consent-related vulnerabilities, and uncertain risks of reidentification. Systematic analyses of the ELSI and scientific reasons for why and how genomic data may be shared responsibly are, however, limited. Methods: We conducted a modified systematic review of reasons according to Sofaer and Strech to examine the ELSI and scientific reasons for "responsible" sharing of children's genomic and associated clinical data. Empirical articles, commentaries, and data-sharing policies indexed in Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and BIOSIS were included in the analysis if they discussed ELSI and were published between 2003 and 2017 in English. Results: One hundred and fifty-one records met our inclusion criteria. We identified 11 unique reasons and 8 subreasons for why children's genomic data should or should not be shared. Enhancing the prospect of direct and indirect benefits and maximizing the utility of children's data were top reasons why data should be shared. Inadequate data privacy protection was the leading reason why it should not. We furthermore identified 8 reasons and 30 subreasons that support conditional data sharing, in which recontact for the continued use of children's data once they reach the age of majority was the most frequently endorsed condition. Conclusions: The complete list of ELSI reasons and responsible conditions provides an evidentiary basis upon which institutions can develop data-sharing policies. Institutions should encourage the sharing of children's data to advance genomic research, while heeding special reconsent and data protection mechanisms that may help mitigate uncertain longitudinal risks for children and families.