Blowing the whistle on mixed gender hospital rooms in Australia and New Zealand: a human rights issue.

The practice of placing men and women in the same hospital room (mixed gender rooms) has been prohibited in the UK National Health Service for over a decade. However, recent research demonstrates that the practice is common and increasing in a major New Zealand public hospital. Reports and complaints show that the practice also occurs in Australia. We argue that mixed gender rooms violate the fundamental human rights of personal security and dignity. The high rates of cognitive impairment, sensory impairment and frailty in hospital wards exacerbates the risk for these violations and subsequent harm. We argue for the adoption of specific national policies prohibiting mixed gender rooms and public reporting of breaches. Importantly, these guidelines can be adopted without compromising the rights of gender minorities. In the long term, hospitals should be built with single occupancy rooms.

Ethics of digital contact tracing wearables.

The success of digital COVID-19 contact tracing requires a strategy that successfully addresses the digital divide-inequitable access to technology such as smartphones. Lack of access both undermines the degree of social benefit achieved by the use of tracing apps, and exacerbates existing social and health inequities because those who lack access are likely to already be disadvantaged. Recently, Singapore has introduced portable tracing wearables (with the same functionality as a contact tracing app) to address the equity gap and promote public health. We argue that governments have an ethical obligation to ensure fair access to the protective benefits of contract tracing during the pandemic and that wearables are an effective way of addressing some important equity issues. The most contentious issues about contact tracing apps have been the potential infringements of privacy and individual liberty, especially where the use of apps or other technology (such as wearables or QR codes) is required for access to certain spaces. Here we argue that wearables, as opposed to apps alone, will make a digital contact tracing mandate more practical and explain some conditions under which such a mandate would be justified. We focus on Singapore as a case study that has recently deployed contact tracing wearables nationally, but also reference debate about wearables in Australia and New Zealand. Our analysis will be relevant to counties trialling similar portable tracing wearables.

In defence of a broad approach to public interest in health data research.

In their response to 'Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork', Grewal and Newson critique us for inattention to the law and putting forward an impracticably broad conceptual understanding of public interest. While we agree more work is needed to generate a workable framework for Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees (IRBs/RECs), we would contend that this should be grounded on a broad conception of public interest. This broadness facilitates regulatory agility, and is already reflected by some current frameworks such as that found in the guidelines approved under Australia's Privacy Act. It remains unclear which elements of our broad account Grewal and Newson would reject, or indeed where the substantive disagreement with our position lies.

Young people with a variation in sex characteristics in Aotearoa/New Zealand: identity, activism and healthcare decision-making.

Young people born with variations in sex characteristics (VSC) or disorders of sex development (DSD) face numerous challenges in navigating issues relating to identity and to their lived and embodied experience. There is limited published research amplifying the voices of young people with a VSC, especially from Aotearoa/New Zealand. This qualitative study provides an up-to-date picture of the lived experience of 10 young people with a VSC in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The research was conducted in collaboration with the advocacy group, Intersex Youth Aotearoa, and explored the level of support provided by health services, peers and advocacy groups in relation to the ways the participants viewed themselves and their bodies, and their health related decision-making. Findings reveal the pressure on young people with a VSC to conform to cultural and societal norms, specifically, heteronormative and traditional constructs of how male and female bodies should look in Aotearoa/NZ society. Such views, often held and perpetuated by health professionals and parents, contributed to complexities surrounding identity, agency and acceptance of difference experienced by these young people. The implications of these findings are discussed, including the need for better psychological and peer support for young people.

Digital contact tracing and exposure notification: ethical guidance for trustworthy pandemic management.

There is growing interest in contact tracing apps (CT apps) for pandemic management. It is crucial to consider ethical requirements before, while, and after implementing such apps. In this paper, we illustrate the complexity and multiplicity of the ethical considerations by presenting an ethical framework for a responsible design and implementation of CT apps. Using this framework as a starting point, we briefly highlight the interconnection of social and political contexts, available measures of pandemic management, and a multi-layer assessment of CT apps. We will discuss some trade-offs that arise from this perspective. We then suggest that public trust is of major importance for population uptake of contact tracing apps. Hasty, ill-prepared or badly communicated implementations of CT apps will likely undermine public trust, and as such, risk impeding general effectiveness.

How should we think about clinical data ownership?

The concept of 'ownership' is increasingly central to debates, in the media, health policy and bioethics, about the appropriate management of clinical data. I argue that the language of ownership acts as a metaphor and reflects multiple concerns about current data use and the disenfranchisement of citizens and collectives in the existing data ecosystem. But exactly which core interests and concerns ownership claims allude to remains opaque. Too often, we jump straight from 'ownership' to 'private property' and conclude 'the data belongs to the patient'. I will argue here that private property is only one type of relevant relationship between people, communities and data. There are several reasons to doubt that conceptualising data as private property presents a compelling response to concerns about clinical data ownership. In particular I argue that clinical data are co-constructed, so a property account would fail to confer exclusive rights to the patient. A non-property account of ownership acknowledges that the data are 'about the patient', and therefore the patient has relevant interests, without jumping to the conclusion that the data 'belongs to the patient'. On this broader account of ownership, the relevant harm is the severing of the connection between the patient and their data, and the solution is to re-engage and re-connect patients to the data research enterprise.

Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork.

The future of health research will be characterised by three continuing trends: rising demand for health data; increasing impracticability of obtaining specific consent for secondary research; and decreasing capacity to effectively anonymise data. In this context, governments, clinicians and the research community must demonstrate that they can be responsible stewards of health data. IRBs and RECs sit at heart of this process because in many jurisdictions they have the capacity to grant consent waivers when research is judged to be of particular value. However, several different terms are used to refer to this value (including public interest, public benefit, public good and social value), indicating a lack of conceptual clarity regarding the appropriate test for access to health data for research without consent. In this paper we do three things. First we describe the current confusion and instability in terminology relating to public interest in the context of consent waivers. Second we argue for harmonisation of terminology on the grounds of clarity, transparency and consistency. Third we argue that the term 'public interest' best reflects the normative work required to justify consent waivers because it is the broadest of the competing terms. 'Public interest' contains within its scope positive and negative implications of a study, as well as welfare, justice and rights considerations. In making this argument, we explain the normative basis for consent waivers, and provide a starting place for further discussion about the precise conditions in which a given study can be said to advance the public interest. Ipsos MORI study found that: … the public would be broadly happy with administrative data linking for research projects provided (1) Those projects have social value, broadly defined. (2) Data are de-identified. (3) Data are kept secure. (4) Businesses are not able to access the data for profit.

Revisiting the equity debate in COVID-19: ICU is no panacea.

Throughout March and April 2020, debate raged about how best to allocate limited intensive care unit (ICU) resources in the face of a growing COVID-19 pandemic. The debate was dominated by utility-based arguments for saving the most lives or life-years. These arguments were tempered by equity-based concerns that triage based solely on prognosis would exacerbate existing health inequities, leaving disadvantaged patients worse off. Central to this debate was the assumption that ICU admission is a valuable but scarce resource in the pandemic context.In this paper, we argue that the concern about achieving equity in ICU triage is problematic for two reasons. First, ICU can be futile and prolong or exacerbate suffering rather than ameliorate it. This may be especially true in patients with COVID-19 with emerging data showing that most who receive access to a ventilator will still die. There is no value in admitting patients with poor prognostic indicators to ICU to meet an equity target when intensive critical care is contrary to their best interests. Second, the focus on ICU admission shifts focus away from important aspects of COVID-19 care where there is greater opportunity for mitigating suffering and enhancing equitable care.We propose that the focus on equity concerns during the pandemic should broaden to include providing all people who need it with access to the highest possible standard of end-of-life care. This requires attention to culturally safe care in the following interlinked areas: palliative care, communication and decision support and advanced care planning.

Against the use and publication of contemporary unethical research: the case of Chinese transplant research.

Recent calls for retraction of a large body of Chinese transplant research and of Dr Jiankui He's gene editing research has led to renewed interest in the question of publication, retraction and use of unethical biomedical research. In Part 1 of this paper, we briefly review the now well-established consequentialist and deontological arguments for and against the use of unethical research. We argue that, while there are potentially compelling justifications for use under some circumstances, these justifications fail when unethical practices are ongoing-as in the case of research involving transplantations in which organs have been procured unethically from executed prisoners. Use of such research displays a lack of respect and concern for the victims and undermines efforts to deter unethical practices. Such use also creates moral taint and renders those who use the research complicit in continuing harm. In Part 2, we distinguish three dimensions of 'non-use' of unethical research: non-use of published unethical research, non-publication, and retraction and argue that all three types of non-use should be upheld in the case of Chinese transplant research. Publishers have responsibilities to not publish contemporary unethical biomedical research, and where this has occurred, to retract publications. Failure to retract the papers implicitly condones the research, while uptake of the research through citations rewards researchers and ongoing circulation of the data in the literature facilitates subsequent use by researchers, policymakers and clinicians.

"Who is watching the watchdog?": ethical perspectives of sharing health-related data for precision medicine in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the ethical concerns Singaporeans have about sharing health-data for precision medicine (PM) and identify suggestions for governance strategies. Just as Asian genomes are under-represented in PM, the views of Asian populations about the risks and benefits of data sharing are under-represented in prior attitudinal research. METHODS: We conducted seven focus groups with 62 participants in Singapore from May to July 2019. They were conducted in three languages (English, Mandarin and Malay) and analysed with qualitative content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: nuanced understandings of data security and data sensitivity; trade-offs between data protection and research benefits; trust (and distrust) in the public and private sectors; and governance and control options. Participants were aware of the inherent risks associated with data sharing for research. Participants expressed conditional support for data sharing, including genomic sequence data and information contained within electronic medical records. This support included sharing data with researchers from universities and healthcare institutions, both in Singapore and overseas. Support was conditional on the perceived social value of the research and appropriate de-identification and data security processes. Participants suggested that a data sharing oversight body would help strengthen public trust and comfort in data research for PM in Singapore. CONCLUSION: Maintenance of public trust in data security systems and governance regimes can enhance participation in PM and data sharing for research. Contrary to themes in much prior research, participants demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the inherent risks of data sharing, analysed trade-offs between risks and potential benefits of PM, and often adopted an international perspective.

Donor-funded research: permissible, not perfect.

Donor-funded research is research funded by private donors in exchange for research-related benefits, such as trial participation or access to the trial intervention. This has been pejoratively referred to as 'pay to play' research, and criticised as unethical. We outline three models of donor-funded research, and argue for their permissibility on the grounds of personal liberty, their capacity to facilitate otherwise unfunded health research and their consistency with current ethical standards for research. We defend this argument against objections that donor-funded research is wrongly exploitative, unfair and undermines the public good of medical research. Our conclusion is that, like all human subjects research, donor-funded research should be regulated via standard health research legislation/guidelines and undergo Research Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board and scientific peer-review. We expect that, measured against these standards, some donor-funded research would be acceptable.

Adjusting the focus: A public health ethics approach to data research.

This paper contends that a research ethics approach to the regulation of health data research is unhelpful in the era of population-level research and big data because it results in a primary focus on consent (meta-, broad, dynamic and/or specific consent). Two recent guidelines - the 2016 WMA Declaration of Taipei on ethical considerations regarding health databases and biobanks and the revised CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans - both focus on the growing reliance on health data for research. But as research ethics documents, they remain (to varying degrees) focused on consent and individual control of data use. Many current and future uses of health data make individual consent impractical, if not impossible. Many of the risks of secondary data use apply to communities and stakeholders rather than individual data subjects. Shifting from a research ethics perspective to a public health lens brings a different set of issues into view: how are the benefits and burdens of data use distributed, how can data research empower communities, who has legitimate decision-making capacity? I propose that a public health ethics framework - based on public benefit, proportionality, equity, trust and accountability - provides more appropriate tools for assessing the ethical uses of health data. The main advantage of a public health approach for data research is that it is more likely to foster debate about power, justice and equity and to highlight the complexity of deciding when data use is in the public interest.

From protectionism to inclusion: A New Zealand perspective on health-related research involving adults incapable of giving informed consent.

The revision of the Council of International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) International ethical guidelines for health-related research (2016) heralds a paradigm shift from the 'protectionist' policies that emerged following historical research atrocities of the 20th century, towards a more nuanced and inclusive approach to research participation. Adopting this modified approach will enable countries to secure the benefits of research for individuals and for society as a whole, while at the same time minimizing the potential for exploitation and research-related harms. This article considers the potential impact of Guideline 16 of the CIOMS 2016 from a New Zealand perspective, with respect to research involving adults with impaired capacity and who are incapable of giving informed consent. While the CIOMS 2016 apply a 'minimal risk' threshold to guide research involving adults who lack capacity to consent, New Zealand law currently adopts a 'best interests' standard which significantly restricts the scope of permissible research that may be performed in this context. This article argues that the CIOMS 2016 should influence change to New Zealand's legal framework for ethical review of research. CIOMS 2016 provides useful guidance for the necessary standards and processes to enable the responsible and ethical inclusion of adults with impaired capacity in research.

Daily decision-making about food during pregnancy: a New Zealand study.

Pregnancy has always been a life-changing event for women and their families, but societal concern about pregnancy and motherhood has become intense in the digital age. The role of health promotion agencies and others supplying health-related resources about lifestyle behaviours is both important and in need of scrutiny. Ever increasing advice for pregnant women, their families and health professionals, abounds. This study of decision making during pregnancy investigated how women made everyday decisions during pregnancy about food and drink, as well as dietary supplements and medications, alcohol and recreational drugs. This qualitative interview study was a side-arm to a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted with pregnant women in Wellington New Zealand, 2013-2016. Data from interviews with 20 women were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. In relation to decision-making about lifestyle behaviours, five themes emerged-Information about food; Wanted and unwanted advice; Worry, anxiety and indecision; Making daily decisions about food; Changes in decision making over time. Participating women talked more about food selection and restriction advice than any other lifestyle topic. Analysis demonstrated concern about information accuracy and overload from multiple, diverse sources. Women described learning how to assess resource credibility, how to develop decision-making skills, and who to trust. The study raises important questions about how the health information environment, despite best intentions, can be confusing or potentially harmful. The study underlines the continued importance of the role health professionals have in not only interpreting information to discuss individualized advice, but also in empowering pregnant women to develop lifestyle-related decision-making skills.

Consent and the ethical duty to participate in health data research.

The predominant view is that a study using health data is observational research and should require individual consent unless it can be shown that gaining consent is impractical. But recent arguments have been made that citizens have an ethical obligation to share their health information for research purposes. In our view, this obligation is sufficient ground to expand the circumstances where secondary use research with identifiable health information is permitted without explicit subject consent. As such, for some studies the Institutional Review Board/Research Ethics Committee review process should not assess the practicality of gaining consent for data use. Instead the review process should focus on assessing the public good of the research, public engagement and transparency.

The experiences of pregnant women in an interventional clinical trial: Research In Pregnancy Ethics (RIPE) study.

There is increasing global pressure to ensure that pregnant women are responsibly and safely included in clinical research in order to improve the evidence base that underpins healthcare delivery during pregnancy. One supposed barrier to inclusion is the assumption that pregnant women will be reluctant to participate in research. There is however very little empirical research investigating the views of pregnant women. Their perspective on the benefits, burdens and risks of research is a crucial component to ensuring effective recruitment. The Research In Pregnancy Ethics (RIPE) study set out to ascertain the views of pregnant women about research participation using an inductive thematic analysis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 women who had participated in a double-blind randomised placebo controlled trial in Wellington (New Zealand) while pregnant. Our results show that at least some pregnant women recognise the value and importance of research during pregnancy. The women we interviewed were deeply invested in the research process and outcomes. Key motivations for participating were altruism, playing a valuable civic role and the importance of research. The main perceived burdens related to inconvenience and time commitment. For some women, possible randomization to the placebo arm was regarded as a burden or disadvantage.