Lainie Ross

Background: The American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the Canadian Medical Association have guidelines that specifically discourage physicians from self-prescribing or prescribing to family members, but only the BMA addresses informal prescription requests between colleagues. Objective: To examine the practices of paediatric providers regarding self-prescribing, curbsiding colleagues, and prescribing and refusing to prescribe to friends and family. Methods: 1086 paediatricians listed from the American Academy of Paediatrics 2007 web-based directory were surveyed. Results: 44% of eligible survey respondents returned usable surveys. Almost half of respondents had prescribed for themselves. An equal number had informally requested a prescription from a colleague. Three-quarters stated they had been asked to prescribe a prescription drug for a first-degree or second-degree relative, and 51% had been asked by their spouse. Eighty-six per cent stated that they had refused to write a prescription on at least one occasion for a friend or family member. The following reasons “strongly influenced” their decision to refuse a prescription request: outside of provider’s expertise ; patient’s need for his or her own physician ; not medically indicated ; need for a physical examination. Conclusion: These data confirm that most physicians have engaged in self-prescribing or curbside requests for prescriptions. It can be argued that curbsiding is more morally problematic than self-prescribing because it implicates a third party, and should be discouraged regardless of whether the requester is a colleague, family member or friend

More than 24,000 patients await organ transplants and the number is increasing yearly. Living donors are an important source of transplant organs. In this paper, I argue that we can morally justify allowing children to serve as donors. Yet, I also argue that their participation must be restricted in order to prevent their exploitation.The paper is divided into six sections. In the first section, I show why the traditional principles of personal autonomy and beneficence are not adequate morally to justify the participation of children in the nontherapeutic role of organ donor. Next, I argue that the moral justification of the child’s participation must be based on the intimate family relationship which permits activities that would be unacceptable in the public domain. In the third section, I argue that family autonomy ought to be limited by the principle of respect for persons. In the fourth section, I propose five principles to guide the participation of children as organ donors. In section five, I discuss the role of the child in the decision-making process. In section six, I critically examine the criteria for equity in donor selection.

Background There is lack of consensus in the bioethics literature regarding the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for organ-preserving purposes. In this study, we assessed the perspectives of clinicians in critical care settings to better inform donor management policy and practice.Methods An online anonymous survey of members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine that presented various scenarios about CPR for organ preservation.Results The email was sent to 10,340 members. It was opened by 5,416 (52%) of members and 405 members (4%) completed the survey with few missing data. A majority of respondents (81%) answered that donation status should not influence whether CPR is performed on an imminently dying patient. There was very strong agreement (>85%) that 1) CPR should be performed on a registered donor who experiences a cardiac arrest with an unknown code status before death by neurological criteria (DNC) and 2) CPR should be performed if the patient is not a registered donor and experiences cardiac arrest but the surrogate/power of attorney (POA) has not yet been approached regarding code status and donation. When a registered donor with a DNR order experiences cardiac arrest before DNC, 98% of respondents would not perform CPR. However, after DNC, respondents were evenly divided on whether they would (49%) or would not (51%) perform CPR on a registered donor with an undocumented code status. When asked whether consent should be required for CPR for organ-preserving purposes, 39% answered “Yes” when a patient arrests before DNC and 48% answered “Yes” when a patient arrests after DNC (P = 0.2).Conclusions The majority of respondents did not consider donor status relevant to CPR decisions before DNC, and virtually all would respect a DNR order in a registered donor before DNC. Respondents were divided about the need for an affirmative consent for CPR for organ-preserving purposes both before and after DNC.

American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) recently provided two recommendations about predictive genetic testing of children. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium's Pediatrics Working Group compared these recommendations, focusing on operational and ethical issues specific to decision making for children. Content analysis of the statements addresses two issues: (1) how these recommendations characterize and analyze locus of decision making, as well as the risks and benefits of testing, and (2) whether the guidelines conflict or come to different but compatible conclusions because they consider different testing scenarios. These statements differ in ethically significant ways. AAP/ACMG analyzes risks and benefits using best interests of the child and recommends that, absent ameliorative interventions available during childhood, clinicians should generally decline to order testing. Parents authorize focused tests. ACMG analyzes risks and benefits using the interests of the child and other family members and recommends that sequencing results be examined for additional variants that can lead to ameliorative interventions, regardless of age, which laboratories should report to clinicians who should contextualize the results. Parents must accept additional analysis. The ethical arguments in these statements appear to be in tension with each other.

A diverse group of scholars reflect on the scholarship of Robert M. Veatch, the breadth of which is unmatched in modern day bioethics. Essays were written by both philosophers and clinician-philosophers, by contemporaries and mentees. They span the breadth of Bob’s work and include analyses of his ideas about death, dying and organ transplantation, human experimentation and research ethics, disability, equality and justice, the doctor-patient relationship, the history of bioethics, as well as his pedagogical approach to teaching bioethics to clinicians across the health care spectrum. Recognition of Bob’s influence in the modern field of bioethics and the challenges that persist are clearly identified.

Introduction Biobank-based research is growing in importance. A major controversy exists about the return of aggregate and individual research results. Methods The authors used a mixed-method approach in order to study parents' attitudes towards the return of research results regarding themselves and their children. Participants attended four 2-h, deliberative-engagement sessions held on two consecutive Saturdays. Each session consisted of an educational presentation followed by focus-group discussions with structured questions and prompts. This manuscript examines discussions from the second Saturday which focused on the benefits and risks of returning aggregate and individual research results regarding both adults (morning session) and children (afternoon session). Attitudes were assessed in pre-engagement and post-engagement surveys. Results The authors recruited 45 African-American adults whose children received medical care at two healthcare facilities on the South Side of Chicago that serve different socioeconomic communities. Three dominant themes were identified. First, most participants stated that they would enrol themselves and their children in a biobank, although there was a vocal minority opposed to enrolling children, particularly children unable to participate in the consent process. Second, participants did not distinguish between the results they wanted to receive regarding themselves and their children. Supplemental survey data found no attitudinal changes pre-engagement and post-engagement. Third, participants believed that children should be allowed access to their health information, but they wanted to be involved in deciding when and how the information was shared. Discussion Participant attitudes are in tension with current biobank policies. An intensive educational effort had no effect on their attitudes

This essay reflects on arguments by Paul Ramsey, in The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics (1970) and elsewhere, that continue to challenge policy‐makers and those doing clinical and translational research involving children. Ramsey argued that parents cannot morally authorize their child's participation in research unless the research is designed to benefit the child. He acknowledged that abiding by this position could have adverse impacts on improving child health, and he concluded, in a 1976 Hastings Center Report piece, that researchers must “sin bravely.” Many philosophers and theologians, including Richard McCormick, have argued against Ramsey. The Ramsey‐McCormick debate played out in the bioethics literature and, by invitation, at the deliberations of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which was tasked with developing an ethics framework and policies for human subjects protections. Although in its final recommendations, the commission sided with McCormick, the strict limitations on risks and harms to which a child can be exposed were clearly influenced by Ramsey.

A couple and their five‐year‐old daughter are in a car accident. The parents are not expected to survive. The child is transported to a children's hospital, and urgent treatment decisions must be made. Whom should the attending physician approach to make decisions for the child? When such cases arise in, for example, the hospitals where we work, the social worker or chaplain is instructed to use the Illinois Health Care Surrogacy Act as a guidepost to identify a decision‐maker. But in our state and the country overall, the limitations of such statutes leave hospital workers to make a judgment call among friends, family, and clergy who may come forward. While surrogate decision‐making statutes comprehensively address surrogate decision‐makers for adults, a patchwork of laws—permanency statutes, kinship provider statutes, standby guardianship statutes, and, in some cases, surrogate decision‐making statutes—provide variable decision‐making pathways for children.

The traditional living donor was very healthy. However, as the supply-demand gap continues to expand, transplant programs have become more accepting of less healthy donors. This paper focuses on the other extreme, asking whether and when individuals who have life-limiting conditions should be considered for living organ donation. We discuss ethical issues raised by 1) donation by individuals with progressive severe debilitating disease for whom there is no ameliorative therapy; and 2) donation by individuals who are imminently dying or would die by the donation process itself.

Within three years of the first successful kidney transplant in the United States between adult identical twins (1954), physicians were in court getting permission to perform kidney transplants between minor identical twins (1957). In the 1970s and 1980s, at least two dozen additional cases involving donation from non-identical twin siblings as well as siblings with cognitive disabilities underwent judicial review. With some notable exceptions, the courts authorized the donations, usually on the grounds that it was in the best interest of both the donor and the recipient. There are data that show that children have also served as donors for other solid organs. In this chapter we examine the ethics of involving minors as living solid organ donors. Our position is that ethically children can serve as living solid organ donors only in very limited circumstances.

The definition of death was clearer one hundred years ago than it is today. People were declared dead if diagnosed with permanent cessation of both cardio‐circulatory function and respiratory function. But the definition has been muddled by the development of new technologies and interventions—first by cardiopulmonary resuscitation and ventilators, which were introduced in the mid‐twentieth century, and now by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, which creates the ability to keep oxygenated blood circulating, with or without a beating heart or functioning lungs. In Defining Death: The Case for Choice, Robert Veatch and I argue that the definition of death should focus on “what change in a human being is so fundamental that we can say the individual is no longer with us as a member of the human community bearing rights such as the right not to be killed.” We assert that this decision is a normative issue about which different stakeholders may believe that different changes are fundamental, and we therefore propose that the optimal policy solution may be to allow stakeholders to choose their own definition within a reasonable range of options. There are three caveats that need to be highlighted regarding this approach.

Both living donor transplantation and human subjects research expose one set of individuals to clinical risks for the clinical benefits of others. In the Belmont Report, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavior Research articulated three principles to serve as the basis for a research ethics framework: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. In contrast, living donor transplantation lacks a framework. In this manuscript, we adapt the three principles articulated in the Belmont Report to serve as the foundation for an ethics framework for living donor transplantation which we supplement with the principles of vulnerability and responsibility. The National Commission supported additional protections for vulnerable groups of potential research participants. In 2001, Kenneth Kipnis effectively argued that the concept of vulnerable groups failed to explore in what ways particular groups of people were vulnerable, thereby risking unnecessary protections for some and inadequate protections for others. He proposed a taxonomy that explored different types of vulnerabilities that all research participants may experience to provide a more robust framework for human subjects protections, which we adapt to living donors. Robert Goodin claims that health professionals, who stand in special relationship with patients, are responsible for promoting and protecting their well-being. In living donor transplantation, the donor transplant team is responsible for empowering prospective donors to address their vulnerabilities and/or for protecting those who cannot by disqualifying them from donation.

The "best interest of the child" standard is central to both pediatric bioethics and the child rights community. In pediatric bioethics in the United States, the best interest of the child standard is cited as the guidance principle for parental decision-making.1 Likewise, in the child rights community, the best interest of the child standard is "of paramount consideration" ). Both approaches also recognize parental rights and responsibilities and support a role for the maturing child in the decision-making process. Why, then, do members of the pediatric bioethics community and the child rights communities not speak the same language?This article was developed out of...

The fundamental principle of modern-day bioethics is that “the competent adult has the right to accept or refuse all medical care, including life-saving medical care,” a principle that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bouvia v. Superior Court ) and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health ). If the adult lacks decision-making capacity, a surrogate can speak on his or her behalf. The adult may have chosen his or her surrogate through an advance directive; if not, laws assign guardianship based on a hierarchy of relationships. Surrogates are expected..

The genetic testing and screening of children has been fraught with controversy since Robert Guthrie developed the bacterial inhibition assay to test for phenylketonuria and advocated for rapid uptake of universal newborn screening in the early 1960s. Today with fast and affordable mass screening of the whole genome on the horizon, the debate about when and in what scenarios children should undergo genetic testing and screening has gained renewed attention. United States professional guidelines — both the American College of Medical Genetics /American Society of Human Genetics statement and the American Academy of Pediatrics Statement on the genetic testing of children and the new AAP and ACMG joint policy statement and technical report — as well as the old UK guidelines by the Working Part of the Clinical Genetics Society and the new United Kingdom guidelines by the British Society of Human Genetics all give the same answer: genetic testing and screening should only be done if it is in the child’s best interest.

In February 1997, the Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics updated its position on religious exemptions to medical care. In its earlier statement, the committee noted that forty-four states have religious exemptions to the child abuse and neglect statutes, and they argued for the repeal of these exemptions. The committee did not indude in its statement a position on religious exemptions to childhood immunization requirements that exist in forty-eight states, although this issue was discussed in committee meetings. In its revised statement, the committee concluded that “The AAP does not support the stringent application of medical neglect laws when children do not receive recommended immunizations.” In this paper, we consider whether failure to immunize one's child is a form of medical neglect and, if so, whether states should repeal their religious exemptions to the immunization statutes. We argue that failure to vaccinate a child properly is medical neglect.

Physicians treating newly incapacitated patients often must navigate surrogate decision-makers through a difficult course of treatment decisions. Such a process can be complex. Physicians must not only explain the medical facts and prognosis to the surrogate, but also attempt to ensure that the surrogate arrives at decisions that are consistent with the patient's own values and wishes. Where these values and wishes are unknown, physicians must help surrogates make decisions that reflect the patient's best interests.

The term “exceptionalism” was introduced into health care in 1991 when Bayer described “HIV exceptionalism” as the policy of treating the human immunodeficiency virus different from other infectious diseases, particularly other sexually transmitted diseases. It was reflected in the following practices: pre- and post-HIV test counseling, the development of specific separate consent forms for HIV testing, and stringent requirements for confidentiality of HIV test results. The justification for these practices was the belief that testing was essential for prevention and that patients might not seek HIV testing if confidentiality were not guaranteed. Confidentiality was believed to be particularly important given the degree of discrimination and stigmatization associated with the illness. Anonymous testing was a further step in ensuring strict confidentiality, even though such a practice prevented public officials from contacting partners and others who were at risk.

In August 2000, Arthur Matas and his colleagues de scribed a protocol in which their institution began to accept as potential donors, individuals who came to the University of Minnesota hospital offering to donate a kidney to any patient on the waiting list. Matas and his colleagues refer to these donors as nondirected donors by which is meant that the donors are altruistic and that they give their organs to an unspecified pool of recipients with whom they have no emotional relationship. This paper represents an ethical and policy critique of the nondirected donation protocol that was implemented at the University of Minnesota in August 1999. Specifically, I address the ethical questions: Whether altruistic living solid organ donations by strangers should be permitted? And if so, What are appropriate ethical guidelines for such donations?