Precarious hope: Ethical considerations for offering experimental fetal therapies outside of research after initial studies in humans.

OBJECTIVE: Risks and benefits of experimental fetal therapies can remain uncertain after initial clinical studies, especially long-term effects. Nevertheless, pregnant individuals may request them, hoping to benefit their future child. Guidance about offering experimental fetal therapies outside research (as "innovative therapy") is limited, despite their ethical complexity. We propose points for clinicians and reviewers to consider when deciding whether and how to offer experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapies after initial clinical studies. METHOD: We used conceptual analysis and a current case to develop points for consideration, grounded in broader debates on innovative therapy and the unique challenges associated with experimental fetal therapies. RESULTS: Clinicians should evaluate whether offering experimental fetal therapies as innovative therapy is appropriate for a pregnant individual and their fetus. The anticipated risk-benefit ratio for the fetus should be favorable. For the pregnant individual, risks may outweigh benefits, within reasonable limits. Medical resources should be sufficient to ensure appropriate care. Clinicians should support pregnant individuals in making informed choices. Clinicians offering innovative therapies with more than minimal risk should collect and report data on outcomes. Independent review should take place. CONCLUSION: Considering these points may advance the interests of fetuses, future children, and their families.

A Personalized Patient Preference Predictor for Substituted Judgments in Healthcare: Technically Feasible and Ethically Desirable.

When making substituted judgments for incapacitated patients, surrogates often struggle to guess what the patient would want if they had capacity. Surrogates may also agonize over having the (sole) responsibility of making such a determination. To address such concerns, a Patient Preference Predictor (PPP) has been proposed that would use an algorithm to infer the treatment preferences of individual patients from population-level data about the known preferences of people with similar demographic characteristics. However, critics have suggested that even if such a PPP were more accurate, on average, than human surrogates in identifying patient preferences, the proposed algorithm would nevertheless fail to respect the patient's (former) autonomy since it draws on the 'wrong' kind of data: namely, data that are not specific to the individual patient and which therefore may not reflect their actual values, or their reasons for having the preferences they do. Taking such criticisms on board, we here propose a new approach: the Personalized Patient Preference Predictor (P4). The P4 is based on recent advances in machine learning, which allow technologies including large language models to be more cheaply and efficiently 'fine-tuned' on person-specific data. The P4, unlike the PPP, would be able to infer an individual patient's preferences from material (e.g., prior treatment decisions) that is in fact specific to them. Thus, we argue, in addition to being potentially more accurate at the individual level than the previously proposed PPP, the predictions of a P4 would also more directly reflect each patient's own reasons and values. In this article, we review recent discoveries in artificial intelligence research that suggest a P4 is technically feasible, and argue that, if it is developed and appropriately deployed, it should assuage some of the main autonomy-based concerns of critics of the original PPP. We then consider various objections to our proposal and offer some tentative replies.

The Claims of Biospecimen Donors to Credit and Compensation.

The biorights movement argues that current treatment of biospecimen donors is unfair. To evaluate this claim, the present Science & Society article identifies the standards used to determine credit and compensation in research, and applies them to donors. This analysis suggests most donors deserve credit and, contrary to current practice, some deserve compensation.

Response to commentaries: 'autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor'.

The authors respond to four JME commentaries on their Feature Article, 'Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor'.

Distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate conditions on research participation.

Individuals do not have a right to participate in clinical trials. But, they do have a right against being denied participation for inappropriate reasons. Despite the widespread endorsement of these two claims, there has been little discussion regarding which conditions for participation in clinical trials are appropriate and which are inappropriate. The present manuscript attempts to address this gap in the literature. We first describe and then argue against the claim that conditions on enrollment or continued participation are appropriate only when they are needed to answer the scientific question(s) posed by the trial. We then offer an alternative view according to which the appropriateness of conditions depends on whether they help to satisfy the ethical requirements of clinical research. Because these requirements include social value, the present view implies that promoting social value is an acceptable reason to impose conditions on research participation. With this in mind, we explain why it is not coercive to require potential participants to accept conditions on enrollment that promote a trial's social value, even when the participants find those conditions unwelcome. We conclude by evaluating the present proposal's implications for the common practice of requiring participants to agree to the possible use of their leftover biospecimens in a broad range of future research. We argue, contra current regulatory policy, that this practice can be acceptable even when the present trial offers participants the prospect of clinical benefit and the samples are being reserved for future research that is unrelated to the present trial.

Views of IRB members regarding phase 1 pediatric oncology trials.

There is significant debate over whether phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are ethical and approvable. We thus surveyed IRB members to answer four questions. First, do IRB members think the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks? Second, do they think these trials are ethically appropriate? Third, do they think these trials are approvable? Fourth, how do the views of IRB members on the first two questions compare to the views of the US public? Of the 80 respondents who answered the test questions correctly, 18.8% stated that the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials outweigh the risks, 32.5% stated that the potential medical benefits and risks are about equal, and 48.8% stated that the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits. Compared to the general public, IRB members were significantly more likely to think the risks outweigh the potential medical benefits (p = 0.01). Finally, 68.8% of IRB members indicated that average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable, and 56.3% indicated that these trials are appropriate in children. These findings suggest two-thirds of IRB members believe average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials are approvable. Yet, almost half regard the risks as outweighing the potential medical benefits and almost half think these trials are inappropriate. These findings raise important questions regarding why IRB members and the general public evaluate the same risk/benefit profile differently, and whether it is possible to reconcile the two perspectives.

A new ethical framework to determine acceptable risks in fetal therapy trials.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal therapy trials pose complex ethical challenges because risks and benefits to both fetuses and pregnant persons must be considered. Existing regulatory guidance is limited and many proposed ethical frameworks have unnecessarily restrictive criteria that would block the development and implementation of important new fetal therapies. We aimed to develop a new ethical framework for assessing the risks and benefits of fetal therapy trials. METHODS: We reviewed existing regulatory and ethical guidance on fetal therapy trials. We used conceptual analysis to design a new ethical framework, which is grounded in general ethical principles for clinical research. RESULTS: We propose a new framework for assessing the risks and benefits of fetal therapy trials. We suggest that the potential benefits of a fetal therapy trial - for the fetus, the pregnant person, and society - should outweigh the risks for the fetus and the pregnant person. Furthermore, the risk-benefit profile for just the fetus and the risk-benefit profile for just the pregnant person should be appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: We hope that this new framework will permit important studies while protecting pregnant persons and fetuses from disproportionate harms.

Autonomy-based criticisms of the patient preference predictor.

The patient preference predictor (PPP) is a proposed computer-based algorithm that would predict the treatment preferences of decisionally incapacitated patients. Incorporation of a PPP into the decision-making process has the potential to improve implementation of the substituted judgement standard by providing more accurate predictions of patients' treatment preferences than reliance on surrogates alone. Yet, critics argue that methods for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients should be judged on a number of factors beyond simply providing them with the treatments they would have chosen for themselves. These factors include the extent to which the decision-making process recognises patients' freedom to choose and relies on evidence the patient themselves would take into account when making treatment decisions. These critics conclude that use of a PPP should be rejected on the grounds that it is inconsistent with these factors, especially as they relate to proper respect for patient autonomy. In this paper, we review and evaluate these criticisms. We argue that they do not provide reason to reject use of a PPP, thus supporting efforts to develop a full-scale PPP and to evaluate it in practice.

A New Ethical Framework for Assessing the Unique Challenges of Fetal Therapy Trials.

New fetal therapies offer important prospects for improving health. However, having to consider both the fetus and the pregnant woman makes the risk-benefit analysis of fetal therapy trials challenging. Regulatory guidance is limited, and proposed ethical frameworks are overly restrictive or permissive. We propose a new ethical framework for fetal therapy research. First, we argue that considering only biomedical benefits fails to capture all relevant interests. Thus, we endorse expanding the considered benefits to include evidence-based psychosocial effects of fetal therapies. Second, we reject the commonly proposed categorical risk and/or benefit thresholds for assessing fetal therapy research (e.g., only for life-threatening conditions). Instead, we propose that the individual risks for the pregnant woman and the fetus should be justified by the benefits for them and the study's social value. Studies that meet this overall proportionality criterion but have mildly unfavorable risk-benefit ratios for pregnant women and/or fetuses may be acceptable.

Deceiving Research Participants: Is It Inconsistent With Valid Consent?

It is widely assumed that the use of deception in research is always inconsistent with obtaining valid consent. In addition, guidelines and regulations permit research without valid consent only when it poses no greater than minimal risk. Current practice thus prohibits studies that use deception and pose greater than minimal risk, including studies that rely on deceptive methods to evaluate experimental treatments. To assess whether these prohibitions are justified, the present paper evaluates five arguments that might be thought to support the assumption that deception is always inconsistent with valid consent. Analysis of these arguments reveals that deception is frequently, but not always, inconsistent with obtaining valid consent for research. This conclusion suggests that, in order to avoid unnecessarily blocking valuable research, current policies and practice should be revised to recognize the conditions under which the use of deception can be consistent with obtaining research participants' valid consent.

Outcomes in Previously Healthy Cryptococcal Meningoencephalitis Patients Treated With Pulse Taper Corticosteroids for Post-infectious Inflammatory Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cryptococcal meningoencephalitis (CM) is a major cause of mortality in immunosuppressed patients and previously healthy individuals. In the latter, a post-infectious inflammatory response syndrome (PIIRS) is associated with poor clinical response despite antifungal therapy and negative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cultures. Data on effective treatment are limited. METHODS: Between March 2015 and March 2020, 15 consecutive previously healthy patients with CM and PIIRS were treated with adjunctive pulse corticosteroid taper therapy (PCT) consisting of intravenous methylprednisolone 1 gm daily for 1 week followed by oral prednisone 1 mg/kg/day, tapered based on clinical and radiological response plus oral fluconazole. Montreal cognitive assessments (MOCA), Karnofsky performance scores, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scanning, ophthalmic and audiologic exams, and CSF parameters including cellular and soluble immune responses were compared at PIIRS diagnosis and after methylprednisolone completion. RESULTS: The median time from antifungal treatment to steroid initiation was 6 weeks. The most common symptoms at PIIRS diagnosis were altered mental status and vision changes. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in MOCA and Karnofsky scores at 1 month (P < .0003), which was accompanied by improvements in CSF glucose, white blood cell (WBC) count, protein, cellular and soluble inflammatory markers 1 week after receiving corticosteroids (CS) (P < .003). All patients with papilledema and visual field deficits also exhibited improvement (P < .0005). Five out of 7 patients who underwent audiological testing demonstrated hearing improvement. Brain MRI showed significant improvement of radiological findings (P = .001). CSF cultures remained negative. CONCLUSIONS: PCT in this small cohort of PIIRS was associated with improvements in CM-related complications with minimal toxicity in the acute setting.

A Call for a Patient Preference Predictor.

OBJECTIVES: When patients lose the capacity to make their own decisions, current practice relies on their family and loved ones to try to identify the treatment course the patient would have chosen for themselves. The fact that this approach has remained essentially unchanged for over 40 years raises the question of whether it successfully provides care that is consistent with patients' treatment preferences. DATA SOURCES: Published studies on the outcomes and impact of surrogate decision-making. STUDY SELECTION: All identified articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Review by the author. DATA SYNTHESIS: Surrogates frequently are not able to identify the treatment preferences of decisionally incapacitated patients and can experience significant distress as a result of making decisions for them. CONCLUSIONS: Revisions to existing practice are needed to increase the extent to which surrogates are able to identify the treatment preferences of decisionally incapacitated patients. One possibility is to assess whether predicting patients' treatment preferences based on the preferences of similar patients might increase the extent to which patients are treated consistent with their preferences and thereby reduce the burden on their surrogates.

Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the US public's views on whether the potential medical benefits of phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks. STUDY DESIGN: Online survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which they have a 10-year-old child with advanced cancer. They were then offered the option of giving their child supportive care or trying one more potential treatment, in the research or clinical care setting, which has the same risks and potential medical benefits as the average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. We assessed what percentage of respondents thought the potential medical benefits justify the risks. RESULTS: In total, 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey participated (response rate = 66.1%). Of those who passed all 3 test questions indicating understanding, 67.1% in the research scenario and 58.5% in the clinical care scenario regarded the potential medical benefits of an average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial as equal to or greater than the risks. In addition, 53.4% of respondents in the research scenario thought it was appropriate for researchers to conduct a study in children with these risks and potential medical benefits, and 46.9% stated they would enroll their own child in such a trial. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of the US public regards the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials as justifying the risks. This finding suggests that these trials are ethically appropriate and approvable in patients who have no more effective treatment options. At the same time, a significant minority thought the potential medical benefits do not justify the risks, suggesting these trials should be approved only when they have significant social value. Moreover, approximately one-half of respondents regarded the trials as inappropriate and would not enroll their own child, underscoring the need for a rigorous informed consent process that accurately educates parents regarding the risks, potential medical benefits, and alternatives, so they can decide whether to enroll their child based on their own preferences and goals.

When and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials.

There has been a good deal of discussion in the literature regarding which subjects are vulnerable in the context of clinical trials. There has been significantly less discussion regarding when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials. This lack of guidance is a particular problem for trials covered by the US regulations, which mandate strict requirements on the inclusion of three groups: pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children. For the past 30 years, funders, investigators, and institutional review boards have frequently responded to these regulations by excluding pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children from clinical trials. More recent work has emphasized the extent to which a default of exclusion can undermine the value of clinical trials, especially pragmatic trials. A default of exclusion also has the potential to undermine the interests of vulnerable groups, in both the short and the long term. These concerns raise the need for guidance on how to satisfy existing US regulations, while minimizing their negative impact on the value of clinical trials and the interests of vulnerable groups. The present manuscript thus describes a six-step decision procedure that institutional review boards can use to determine when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials, including pragmatic trials, that are covered by US regulations.

Ethics of information-gathering interventions in innovative practice.

Innovative practice involves medical interventions that deviate from standard practice in significant ways. For many patients, innovative practice offers the best chance of successful treatment. Because little is known about most innovative treatments, clinicians who engage in innovative practice might consider including extra procedures, such as scans or blood draws, to gather information about the innovation. Such information-gathering interventions can yield valuable information for modifying the innovation to benefit future patients and for designing scientific studies of the innovation. However, existing guidelines do not say when or whether it is appropriate to add potentially risky information-gathering interventions for these purposes. As a result, clinicians may assume that information-gathering interventions are ethically inappropriate and should not be used in innovative practice. This assumption can lead to seriously negative consequences, such as increasing the likelihood that harmful or ineffective innovations will be adopted and creating new barriers to the development of genuinely beneficial treatments. We argue that health care institutions need to promote the responsible use of information-gathering interventions as an adjunct to innovative practice, and that these interventions are not clinical research and should not be subject to research oversight.

Minimizing Risks Is Not Enough: The Relevance of Benefits to Protecting Research Participants.

Forty years ago, the Belmont Report counseled that a "systematic, nonarbitrary analysis of risks and benefits" is vital to ensuring the ethical appropriateness of research with human subjects. Since then, research ethics has devoted considerable attention to the first half of this advice, emphasizing the ethical importance of assessing and minimizing the risks of research with human subjects. Significantly less attention has been devoted to a systematic assessment of the potential benefits of research participation. To the extent that benefits for individual participants are considered at all, commentators tend to focus on their potential to undermine the goal of minimizing risks. A chance for clinical benefit may obscure the fact that research poses risks not present in clinical care, while an offer of financial compensation or ancillary care may induce individuals to accept risks that conflict with their long-term interests. This article argues that, while undoubtedly important, minimizing risks fails to offer sufficient protection for research participants, especially those who cannot consent, because it neither ensures that the risks of research are justified nor protects participants from exploitation. Belmont's advice to develop systematic and nonarbitrary ways to ensure that research participants receive appropriate benefits needs to be heeded as well.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Comprehension of Biospecimen Collection: a Nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center NCI Community Oncology Research Program Study.

To examine whether (a) non-minority participants differed from racial minority participants in the understanding of biospecimens collected for research purposes, (b) patients differed from comparison group in their understanding of the ways their biospecimens could be used by researchers, and (c) participants received adequate information before consenting to donate blood for research studies. We analyzed cross-sectional data from female breast cancer patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) clinical sites and a healthy comparison group. After reading a consent form related to biospecimens and consenting to participate in a clinical trial, participants' understanding of biospecimen collection was evaluated. Linear models were used to compare scores between non-minority and racial minority participants as well as cancer and non-cancer comparisons adjusting for possible confounding factors. A total of 650 participants provided evaluable data; 592 were non-minority (Caucasian) and 58 participants were a racial minority (71% Black and 29% other). There were 427 cancer patients and 223 comparisons. Non-minority participants scored higher than racial minorities on relevance-to-care items (diff. = 0.48, CI 0.13-0.80, p = 0.001). Comparison group scored higher than cancer patients on relevance-to-care items (diff. = 0.58, CI 0.37-0.78). A moderate number of the participants exhibited a poor understanding of biospecimen collection across all racial/ethnic backgrounds, but racial minority participants' scores remained lower in the relevance-to-care subscale even after adjusting for education and reading level. Differences were also noted among the patients and comparison group. Researchers should facilitate comprehension of biospecimen collection for all study participants, especially racial minority participants.

The Value in Doing Something.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the reasons why attempts at redirection, especially at the end of life, often fail, and patients and families insist on treating the underlying illness. SETTING: Conflicts between patients and caregivers regarding the appropriate course of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Clinicians typically understand requests for treatment merely as means to obtain effective care. However, patients and families often request treatment as a way to exert their agency, avoid a sense of responsibility for unwanted outcomes, and express compassion. CONCLUSIONS: In response to devastating illness, patients and families are frequently motivated by factors that go beyond obtaining effective care. Awareness of these factors can help clinicians to identify sources of potential conflict and continue to provide compassionate care.

Ethical issues in denial of church wedding based on couple's hemoglobin genotype in Enugu, south eastern Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a major genetic disease with the greatest burden in sub-Saharan Africa. To try to help reduce this burden, some churches in Nigeria conduct premarital sickle cell hemoglobin screening and refuse to conduct weddings when both individuals are identified as carriers of sickle cell trait. MAIN BODY: This paper explores the ethical challenges involved in such denials. We assess whether churches have the right to decline to marry adults who understand the risks and still prefer to get married, and whether couples should be denied church weddings based on the risk that their child may suffer from sickle cell anemia. We examine the moral and ethical dimensions of such denials and explore the underlying socio-cultural context involving the purpose of marriage and the meaning of the wedding ceremony in societies where premarital screening is one of the few tools available to reduce the risk of having children with SCA. The potential role of the church is also examined against the background of church beliefs, the duty of the church to its members and its role in reducing the suffering of its members and /or their children. CONCLUSION: We argue that the church should impose these burdens on couples only if doing so promotes a sufficiently compelling goal and there is no less burdensome way to achieve it. We then argue that the goal of reducing the number of individuals in Nigeria who have SCA is compelling. However, testing earlier in life offers a less burdensome and potentially even more effective means of achieving this goal. This suggests that, advocating for earlier screening and helping to support these programs, would likely better promote the church's own goals of helping its parishioners, increasing the number of church weddings, and reducing the burden of SCA in Nigeria.