Limits on Parental Discretion in Medical Decision-Making: pediatric intervention principles converge.

Pediatric intervention principles help clinicians and health-care institutions determine appropriate responses when parents' medical decisions place children at risk. Several intervention principles have been proposed and defended in the pediatric ethics literature. These principles may appear to provide conflicting guidance, but much of that conflict is superficial. First, seemingly different pediatric intervention principles sometimes converge on the same guidance. Second, these principles often aim to solve different problems in pediatrics or to operate in different background conditions. The potential for convergence between intervention principles-or at least an absence of conflict between them-matters for both the theory and practice of pediatric ethics. This article builds on the recent work of a diverse group of pediatric ethicists tasked with identifying consensus guidelines for pediatric decision-making.

An ethical analysis of obesity as a contraindication to pediatric liver transplant candidacy.

Childhood obesity is becoming more prevalent in the United States (US) and worldwide, including among children in need of a liver transplant. Unlike with heart and kidney failure, end-stage liver disease (ESLD) is unique in that no widely available medical technology can re-create the life-sustaining function of a failing liver. Therefore, delaying a life-saving liver transplant for weight loss, for example, is much harder, if not impossible for many pediatric patients, especially those with acute liver failure. For adults in the United States, guidelines consider obesity a contraindication to liver transplant. Although formal guidelines are lacking in children, many pediatric transplant centers also consider obesity a contraindication to a pediatric liver transplant. Variations in practice among pediatric institutions may result in biased and ad hoc decisions that worsen healthcare inequities. In this article, we define and report the prevalence of childhood obesity among children with ESLD, review existing guidelines for liver transplant in adults with obesity, examine pediatric liver transplant outcomes, and discuss the ethical considerations of using obesity as a contraindication to pediatric liver transplant informed by the principles of utility, justice, and respect for persons.

An ethical analysis of obesity as a contraindication of pediatric kidney transplant candidacy.

The inclusion of body mass index (BMI) as a criterion for determining kidney transplant candidacy in children raises clinical and ethical challenges. Childhood obesity is on the rise and common among children with kidney failure. In addition, obesity is reported as an independent risk factor for the development of CKD and kidney failure. Resultantly, more children with obesity are anticipated to need kidney transplants. Most transplant centers around the world use high BMI as a relative or absolute contraindication for kidney transplant. However, use of obesity as a relative or absolute contraindication for pediatric kidney transplant is controversial. Empirical data demonstrating poorer outcomes following kidney transplant in obese pediatric patients are limited. In addition, pediatric obesity is distributed inequitably among groups. Unlike adults, most children lack independent agency to choose their food sources and exercise opportunities; they are dependent on their families for these choices. In this paper, we define childhood obesity and review (1) the association and impact of obesity on kidney disease and kidney transplant, (2) existing adult guidelines and rationale for using high BMI as a criterion for kidney transplant, (3) the prevalence of childhood obesity among children with kidney failure, and (4) the existing literature on obesity and pediatric kidney transplant outcomes. We then discuss ethical considerations related to the use of obesity as a criterion for kidney transplant.

Navigating parental requests: considering the relational potential standard in paediatric end-of-life care in the paediatric intensive care unit.

Families and clinicians approaching a child's death in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) frequently encounter questions surrounding medical decision-making at the end of life (EOL), including defining what is in the child's best interest, finding an optimal balance of benefit over harm, and sometimes addressing potential futility and moral distress. The best interest standard (BIS) is often marshalled by clinicians to help navigate these dilemmas and focuses on a clinician's primary ethical duty to the paediatric patient. This approach does not consider a clinician's potential duty to the patient's family. This paper argues that when a child is dying in the PICU, the physician has a duty to serve both the patient and the family, and that in some circumstances, the duty to serve the family becomes as important as that owed to the child. We detail the limitations of the BIS in paediatric EOL care and propose the relational potential standard as an additional ethical framework to guide our decisions.

Caregiver COVID-19 vaccination for solid organ transplant candidates.

An increasing proportion of transplant centers have implemented a mandate for vaccination against COVID-19 for solid organ transplant candidates. There has been comparatively little exploration of the ethical considerations of mandating vaccination of a candidate's primary caregiver, despite a high risk of transmission given the close nature of contact between the candidate and caregiver. We examine how a caregiver mandate can improve overall utility in organ allocation, particularly in circumstances where vaccine effectiveness at preventing transmission and serious disease is low among recipients but high in caregivers. Our analysis reveals how sensitive such mandates must be to the evolving circumstances of disease severity, transmissibility, and vaccine effectiveness: as the facts change, the degree of benefit gained and therefore the degree of infringement on access to transplant and caregiver choice that is tolerated will likewise change.

Considering a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidates.

The world continues to face the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in protecting recipients, decreasing the risk of COVID-19 acquisition, transmission, hospitalization, and death. Transplant recipients may be at greater risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. As a result, transplant programs have begun instituting mandates for COVID-19 vaccine for transplant candidacy. While the question of mandating COVID-19 vaccine for adult transplant candidates has garnered attention in the lay and academic press, these discussions have not explicitly addressed children who may be otherwise eligible for kidney transplants. In this paper we seek to examine the potential ethical justifications of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidacy through an examination of relevant ethical principles, analogous cases of the use of mandates, differences between adult and pediatric kidney transplant candidates, and the role of gatekeeping in transplant vaccine mandates. At present, it does not appear that pediatric kidney transplant centers are justified to institute a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for candidates. Finally, we will offer suggestions to be considered prior to the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Staffing crisis capacity: a different approach to healthcare resource allocation for a different type of scarce resource.

Severe staffing shortages have emerged as a prominent threat to maintaining usual standards of care during the COVID-2019 pandemic. In dire settings of crisis capacity, healthcare systems assume the ethical duty to maximise aggregate population-level benefit of existing resources. To this end, existing plans for rationing mechanical ventilators and intensive care unit beds in crisis capacity focus on selecting individual patients who are most likely to survive and prioritising these patients to receive scarce resources. However, staffing capacity is conceptually different from availability of these types of discrete resources, and the existing strategy of identifying and prioritising patients with the best prognosis cannot be readily adapted to fit this real-world scenario. We propose that two alternative approaches to staffing resource allocation offer a better conceptual fit: (1) prioritise the worst off: restrict access to acute care services and hospital admission for patients at relatively low clinical risk and (2) prioritise staff interventions with high near-term value: universally restrict selected interventions and treatments that require substantial staff time and/or energy but offer minimal near-term patient benefit. These strategies-while potentially resulting in care that deviates from usual standards-support the goal of maximising the aggregate benefit of scarce resources in crisis capacity settings triggered by staffing shortages. This ethical framework offers a foundation to support institutional leaders in developing operationalisable crisis capacity policies that promote fairness and support healthcare workers.

A world away and here at home: a prioritisation framework for US international patient programmes.

Programmes serving international patients are increasingly common throughout the USA. These programmes aim to expand access to resources and clinical expertise not readily available in the requesting patients' home country. However, they exist within the US healthcare system where domestic healthcare needs are unmet for many children. Focusing our analysis on US children's hospitals that have a societal mandate to provide medical care to a defined geographic population while simultaneously offering highly specialised healthcare services for the general population, we assume that, given their mandate, priority will be given to patients within their catchment area over other patients. We argue that beyond prioritising patients within their region and addressing inequities within US healthcare, US institutions should also provide care to children from countries where access to vital medical services is unavailable or deficient. In the paper, we raise and attempt to answer the following: (1) Do paediatric healthcare institutions have a duty to care for all children in need irrespective of their place of residence, including international patients? (2) If there is such a duty, how should this general duty be balanced against the special duty to serve children within a defined geographical area to which an institution is committed, when resources are strained? (3) Finally, how are institutional obligations manifest in paradigm cases involving international patients? We start with cases, evaluating clinical and contextual features as they inform the strength of ethical claim and priority for access. We then proceed to develop a general prioritisation framework based on them.

Rhetoric, Persuasion, Compulsion, and the Stubborn Problem of Vaccine Hesitancy.

Despite the impact of vaccination on the control and prevention of many infectious diseases, vaccine opposition and hesitancy remain significant barriers to fully protecting individuals and communities against serious disease. The primary response to the problem of vaccine hesitancy includes persuasion and some degree of compulsion, usually in the form of vaccine mandates. Persuasion, if it can be successfully leveraged to provide sufficient control of disease spread, is the ethically preferred approach. Yet persuasion has proven less than adequate, leading to increasing calls for vaccination mandates and the elimination of nonmedical exemptions to those mandates. Four scholars have recently examined the underlying causes of vaccine hesitancy in the interest of improving rhetoric surrounding vaccination. This article reviews those books and offers suggestions for optimizing the strategy of persuasion in the interest of reducing the need for compulsion.

The limits of refusal: An ethical review of solid organ transplantation and vaccine hesitancy.

Patients pursuing solid organ transplantation are encouraged to receive many vaccines on an accelerated timeline. Vaccination prior to transplantation offers the best chance of developing immunity and may expand the pool of donor organs that candidates can accept without needing posttransplant therapy. Furthermore, transplant recipients are at greater risk for acquiring vaccine-preventable illnesses or succumbing to severe sequelae of such illnesses. However, a rising rate of vaccine refusal has challenged transplant centers to address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy. Transplant centers may need to consider adopting a policy of denial of solid organ transplantation on the basis of vaccine refusal for non-medical reasons (i.e., philosophical or religious objections or personal beliefs that vaccines are unnecessary or unsafe). Arguments supporting such a policy are motivated by utility, stewardship, and beneficence. Arguments opposing such a policy emphasize justice and respect for persons, and seek to avoid worsening inequities or medical coercion. This paper examines these arguments and situates them within the special cases of pediatric transplantation, emergent transplantation, and living donation. Ultimately, a uniform national policy addressing vaccine refusal among transplant candidates is needed to resolve this ethical dilemma and establish a consistent, fair, and standard approach to vaccine refusal in transplantation.

An ethical analysis of obesity as a determinant of pediatric heart transplant candidacy.

BACKGROUND: Inclusion of BMI as criterion in the determination of heart transplant candidacy in children is a clinical and ethical challenge. Childhood obesity is increasing and children with heart disease are not spared. Currently, many adult heart transplant centers consider class II obesity and higher (BMI > 35 kg/m2 ) to be a relative contraindication for transplantation due to risk of poor outcome after transplant. No national guidelines exist regarding consideration of BMI in pediatric heart transplant and outcomes data are limited. This leaves decisions about transplant candidacy in obese pediatric patients to individual institutions or on a case-by-case basis, allowing for bias and inequity. METHODS: We review (a) the prevalence of childhood obesity, including among heart transplant candidates, (b) the lack of existing BMI guidelines, and (c) relevant literature on BMI and pediatric heart transplant outcomes. We discuss the ethical considerations of using obesity as a criterion using the principles of utility, justice, and respect for persons. RESULTS: Existing transplant outcomes data do not show that obese children have different or poor enough outcomes compared to non-obese children to warrant exclusion. Moreover, obesity in the United States is unequally distributed by race and socioeconomic status. Children already suffering from health disparities are therefore doubly penalized if obesity denies them access to life-saving transplant. CONCLUSION: Insufficient data exist to support using any BMI cutoff as an absolute contraindication for heart transplant in children. Attention should be paid to health equity issues when considering excluding a patient for transplant based on obesity.

Vaccine ethics: an ethical framework for global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines.

This paper addresses the just distribution of vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus and sets forth an ethical framework that prioritises frontline and essential workers, people at high risk of severe disease or death, and people at high risk of infection. Section I makes the case that vaccine distribution should occur at a global level in order to accelerate development and fair, efficient vaccine allocation. Section II puts forth ethical values to guide vaccine distribution including helping people with the greatest need, reducing health disparity, saving the most lives and promoting narrow social utility. It also responds to objections which claim that earlier years have more value than later years. Section III puts forth a practical ethical framework to aid decision-makers and compares it with alternatives.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content. DESIGN: Survey and mixed-methods content analysis. SETTING: North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership. RESULTS: Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend that those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations. LIMITATION: The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs. CONCLUSION: Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Pandemics and Beyond: Considerations When Personal Risk and Professional Obligations Converge.

With each novel infectious disease outbreak, there is scholarly attention to healthcare providers' obligation to assume personal risk while they care for infected patients. While most agree that healthcare providers have a duty to assume some degree of risk, the extent of this obligation remains uncertain. Furthermore, these analyses rarely examine healthcare institutions' obligations during these outbreaks. As a result, there is little practical guidance for healthcare institutions that are forced to weigh whether or when to exclude healthcare providers from providing care or allow them to opt out from providing care to protect themselves. This article uses the COVID-19 pandemic to examine the concept of risk and the professional duties of both healthcare providers and healthcare institutions, and proposes a framework that can be used to make concrete institutional policy choices. This framework should be a useful tool for any hospital, clinic, or health agency that must make these choices during the current pandemic and beyond.

Competencies and Milestones for Bioethics Trainees: Beyond ASBH's Healthcare Ethics Certification and Core Competencies.

Clinical ethics training programs are responsible for preparing their trainees to be competent ethics consultants worthy of the trust of patients, families, surrogates, and healthcare professionals. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) offers a certification examination for healthcare ethics consultants, no tools exist for the formal evaluation of ethics trainees to assess their progress toward competency. Medical specialties accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) use milestones to report trainees' progress along a continuum of professional development as a means of "operationalizing and implementing" medical competencies. Utilizing the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation and the ACGME and American Board of Pediatrics' (ABP) Pediatric Milestones Project, we developed milestones for 17 subcompetencies in clinical ethics consultation and academic bioethics. As the field of clinical ethics becomes more standardized, such tools will be needed to promote the development of robust training programs and to certify that their graduates are competent practitioners.

Conflicts of interest in clinical ethics consults.

Although there is wide agreement that ethics consults are at risk for conflicts of interest (COIs), ethics consultants (ECs) have limited guidance with regard to how to identify and approach COIs. We aim to address these concerns and provide practical guidance. We will define and consider four categories of COIs: consult type, team composition, dual clinical roles and other concerns. We will define and consider six actions available for ECs to take in response to COIs: no action, disclosure only, obtaining a second opinion, referring to another EC, referring to an institutional ethics committee or seeking an outside consult. We will then propose a points-based algorithm for ECs to use to determine the appropriate response to COI. Finally, we will discuss the strengths and limitations of our proposed algorithm.

Do Clinical Ethics Fellowships Prepare Trainees for their First Jobs? A National Survey of Former Clinical Ethics Fellows.

Clinical ethics consultants provide a range of services in hospital settings and in teaching environments. Training to achieve the skills needed to meet the expectations of employers comes in various forms, ranging from on-the-job training to formal fellowship training programs. We surveyed graduates of clinical ethics fellowships to evaluate their self-reported preparedness for their first job after fellowship training. The results indicated several areas of need, including greater exposure to program-building skills, quality improvement skills, and approaches to working with members of higher administration. These data will be of use to educators as well as to fellows who advocate for elements of training in preparation for their first position.

Decision Making on Behalf of Children: Understanding the Role of the Harm Principle.

Thirty years ago, Buchanan and Brock distinguished between guidance principles and interference principles in the setting of surrogate decision making on behalf of children and incompetent adult patients. They suggested that the best interest standard could serve as a guidance principle, but was insufficient as an interference principle. In this issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics, Ross argues that the best interest standard can serve as neither a guidance or interference principle for decision making on behalf of children, but that her model of constrained parental autonomy can serve as both. I will argue that Buchanan and Brock were correct that a single model or standard cannot serve as both a guidance and interference principle in pediatrics and that the best interest standard is a sufficient guidance principle. The harm principle fulfills the conditions necessary for an interference principle, at least insofar as deciding when state intervention to interfere with parental decision making is justified.

Consideration of children with intellectual disability as candidates for solid organ transplantation-A practice in evolution.

Children with intellectual disability were historically excluded from consideration as recipients of solid organ transplants. In light of an evolution in provider practices, this commentary will define intellectual disability and review the relevant provider attitudes and guidelines and known outcomes of solid organ transplant in this population.

Fairness, severe intellectual disability, and the special case of transplantation.

Children with severe intellectual disability have historically been excluded from solid organ transplantation. The purpose of this article was to review the arguments for excluding this population, including claims of poorer recipient and graft survival, a lower QoL as pediatric recipients become adults, and poorer outcomes for other, more deserving pediatric transplant candidates, and make the case that these arguments are no longer persuasive. We will argue that pediatric transplant centers for reasons of social justice, value of relationships, power differential, and fairness should generally not consider intellectual ability or disability as a criterion when making decisions regarding organ transplant eligibility.