Background The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals’ routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals’ rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders. Methods In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues. Results Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals’ data are used. Conclusions MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

Background Little is known about the frequency of conflict between clinicians and families at the time of pediatric clinical ethics consultation (CEC) and what factors are associated with the presence of conflict. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single, tertiary urban US pediatric hospital that included all hospitalized patients between January 2008 and December 2019 who received CEC. Utilizing the hospital’s CEC database that requires documentation of the presence of conflict by the consultant at the time of CEC, we determined the frequency and types of perceived conflict between families and clinicians. We also assessed the bivariable association between conflict and patient age, patient- or family-reported race/ethnicity, language for care, insurance status, clinical setting, and consultant involvement. Results Perceived conflict between clinicians and families was present in 44% (91/209) of CEC. We observed a higher occurrence of clinician-family conflict within certain consult topics than others, in particular, informed consent/parental permission (69%), cultural considerations (67%), benefit/harm assessment (58%), and limitation of life-sustaining treatment (58%). We found no other significant associations between the presence of perceived conflict and patient sociodemographic factors or CEC factors. Conclusions Conflict between healthcare teams and families appears common in CEC, particularly with certain consult topics. Further study is needed to better understand conflict types, causes of conflicts, management and mediation strategies, and outcomes.

Background Most jurisdictions that allow euthanasia and assisted suicide (AS) regulate it through the medical profession. However, the extent and nature of how medicine should be involved are debated. Swiss AS practice is unusual in that it is managed by lay AS organizations that rely on a law that permits AS when done for nonselfish reasons. Physicians are not mentioned in the law but are usually called upon to prescribe the lethal medications and perform capacity evaluations. Methods We analyzed in-depth interviews of 23 Swiss AS experts including ethicists, lawyers, medical practitioners, and senior officials of AS organizations for their views on AS. Results Although there was agreement on some issues (e.g., need for better end-of-life care), the interviewees’ preferred model for AS, and the nature of preferred medical involvement, varied, which we categorized into five types: preference for AS practice as it occurred prior to lay AS organizations; preference for the current lay model; preference for a modified lay model to increase autonomy protections while limiting medical AS normalization; preference for various types of more medicalized models of AS; and, ambivalence about any specific model of medical involvement. The rationales given for each type of model reflected varying opinions on how medicine’s role would likely impact AS practice and demonstrated the experts’ attitudes toward those impacts. Conclusion The dynamics within the Swiss AS regime, as reflected in the varying views of Swiss AS experts, shed light on the dilemmas inherent to medical scope and involvement in AS, which may have implications for debates in other jurisdictions.

Background Sharing of genomic data aims to make efficient use of limited resources, which may be particularly valuable in rare disease research. Adult research participants and parents of pediatric research participants have shown support for data sharing with protections, but little is known about adolescent attitudes on genomic privacy and data sharing. Methods In-depth interviews were conducted with 10 adolescents and 18 parents of children enrolled in a pediatric genomic research repository. Interview transcripts were analyzed for themes on attitudes toward genomic privacy, restricted-access data sharing, and open-access data sharing. Findings in adolescent and parent participants were compared and contrasted. Results No adolescents endorsed privacy concerns for restricted-access data sharing. Both adolescents and parents saw value in data sharing for reaching the goals of research and discussed trust in institutions and researchers to protect their data and use it as intended. Adolescents were more likely than parents to accept open-access data sharing, including after risks were discussed. Conclusions In this exploratory study, adolescents and parents enrolled in a genomic research repository shared many attitudes about genomic data sharing, but adolescents were less concerned about privacy and more agreeable toward open-access data sharing. Future research is needed to investigate this hypothesis in expanded populations and settings, and to clarify whether adolescent attitudes change with age and experiences.

Background There are several psychosocial and ethical issues surrounding the decision to be a living kidney donor. The present study aimed to determine the perceptions of psychosocial and ethical issues that living kidney donors may have, and analyze their psychological characteristics. Methods Face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 donors. Thematic analysis was then performed to categorize the thematic elements of the transcripts. All procedures were approved by the relevant review board. Results Four main categories were identified: Awareness of family dynamics, barriers to a proper understanding, contrasting psychological effects of recipient presence in clinical practice, insufficient information explained in informed consent. Conclusion Donors felt that they took on the “role as a care giver” for the recipient and were less aware of themselves as patients. This is a new concept that has not been shown in previous studies. Donors exist within the recipient and family, and the range of their autonomy may go beyond the traditional concept of autonomy and be rooted in relational autonomy. This study suggested that medical treatment in the presence of the recipient promotes the relational autonomy of the donor.

Background: Ethical frameworks for organ donation following circulatory death (DCD) were established >20 years ago. However, considerable variation exists among these, indicating consensus has not been reached on all issues. Additionally, advances such as cardiac DCD transplants and normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) may have reignited old debates. Methods: We reviewed the English-language literature addressing ethical issues in DCD from 1993 to 2022, examining changes in frequency with which ethical principles and their sub-themes identified within each, were addressed. Results: Non-maleficence was the most frequently addressed principle (192 of 199 articles), as well as the most varied, with 9 subthemes (versus 2-4 within each of the other bioethical principles). Conclusions: There were several changes in the terminology used to refer to DCD over time, and substantial interest in cardiac DCD and NRP in recent publications, arising in 11 and 19 of the 30 publications from 2018 to 2022.

Background Psychiatric electroceutical interventions (PEIs) use electrical or magnetic stimulation to treat mental disorders and may raise different ethical concerns than other therapies such as medications or talk therapy. Yet little is known about stakeholders’ perceptions of, and ethical concerns related to, these interventions. We aimed to better understand the ethical concerns of a variety of stakeholder groups (patients with depression, caregivers of patients, members of the public, and psychiatrists) regarding four PEIs: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and adaptive brain implants (ABI). Methods We conducted a national survey of these four stakeholder groups, using an embedded video vignette experiment depicting a patient with treatment-resistant depression and her psychiatrist discussing the possibility of treatment with one of the four PEIs. Results Participants’ ethical concerns varied by stakeholder group, by PEI, and by the interaction of the two. The three non-clinician groups tended to have similar ethical concerns, but to differ from psychiatrists. Similar concerns were raised with regard to the two implantable technologies, DBS and ABI. Overall, there was relatively little concern about the involuntary use of PEIs, though some expressed concern about the adequacy of information provided during the consent process. There was also significant concern that patients may not receive helpful therapies. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first national survey that includes multiple stakeholder groups and multiple PEI modalities. A better understanding of the ethical concerns of stakeholders can help to shape clinical practice and health care policy regarding PEIs.

Purpose Medical students receive a varying amount of training in medical ethics and are expected to navigate clinical ethical dilemmas innately. There is little literature on attempts to navigate ethical dilemmas experienced during early clinical experiences and whether current curricula prepare students for these dilemmas. This study explores the different ethical dilemmas experienced by medical students on their third-year clerkships and analyzes the factors, sources, and resolutions proposed by them. Methods From 2016 to 2018, third-year medical students completed a written assignment to describe, analyze, and reflect on a clinical situation in which they experienced an ethical dilemma. They identified specific ethical dilemmas present, potential preventative and aftermath solutions, and reflected on their professional development from their experience. The research team utilized applied thematic analysis to identify themes and patterns in the data. A thematic matrix was utilized to examine similarities and differences across medical students. Results Of the 162 reflections, 144 (88.9%) students indicated an ethical dilemma that included issues related to autonomy and beneficence. Of these, 116 (71.6%) students found the two ethical principles in direct conflict. Students identified three common sources of this conflict: lack of communication; unclear understanding of clinical policies regarding family authority and psychiatric capacity; and medical negligence. Lastly, students suggested different solutions for dealing with and preventing this conflict. Conclusion Our findings suggest that an overwhelming number of students face ethical challenges when confronted with medical situations that raise conflicts between autonomy and beneficence. Their recommended solutions reveal an appeal among students to have tools and strategies in place to ease the need to make difficult decisions. Medical students might be better served by learning about the complexities of ethical decision-making and the likelihood of experiencing moral distress when they feel an inability to implement what they envision as the best solution.

Background Medical aid in dying (MAID) is legal in a number of countries, including some states in the U.S. While MAID is only permitted for terminal illnesses in the U.S., some other countries allow it for persons with psychiatric illness. Psychiatric MAID, however, raises unique ethical concerns, especially related to its effects on mental illness stigma and on how persons with psychiatric illnesses would come to feel about treatment and suicide. To explore those concerns, we conducted several focus groups with persons with lived experience of mental illness. Methods We conducted three video-conference-based focus groups involving adults residing in the U.S. who reported a prior diagnosis of any psychiatric illness. Only participants who reported thinking that MAID for terminal illness was morally acceptable were included. Focus group participants were asked to respond to a series of four questions. Groups were facilitated by a coordinator who was independent of the research team. Results A total of 22 persons participated in the focus groups. The majority of participants had depression and anxiety disorders; no participants had psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Many participants strongly favored permitting psychiatric MAID, generally on the basis of respect for autonomy, its effects on stigma, and the severe suffering caused by mental illness. Others expressed concerns, typically related to difficulties in ensuring decision-making capacity and to the risk that MAID would be used in lieu of suicide. Conclusions Persons with a history of psychiatric illness, as a group, have a diverse array of views about the permissibility of psychiatric MAID, reflecting nuanced consideration of how it relates to the public perception of mental illness, stigma, autonomy, and suicide risk.

Background Families whose child has unexplained intellectual or developmental differences often hope that a genetic diagnosis will lower barriers to community-based therapeutic and support services. However, there is little known about efforts to mobilize genetic information outside the clinic or how socioeconomic disadvantage shapes and constrains outcomes. Methods We conducted an ethnographic study with predominantly socioeconomically disadvantaged families enrolled in a multi-year genomics research study, including clinic observations and in-depth interviews in English and Spanish at multiple time points. Coding and thematic development were used to collaboratively interpret fieldnotes and transcripts. Results Thirty-two families participated. Themes included familial expectations that a genetic diagnosis could be translated into information, understanding, and assistance to improve the quality of a child’s day-to-day life. After sequencing, however, genetic information was not readily converted into improved access to services beyond the clinic, with families often struggling to use a genetic diagnosis to advocate for their child. Conclusion Families’ ability to use a genetic diagnosis as an effective advocacy tool beyond the clinic was limited by the knowledge and resources available to them, and by the eligibility criteria used by therapeutic service providers’ – which focused on clinical diagnosis and functional criteria more than etiologic information. All families undertaking genomic testing, particularly those who are disadvantaged, need additional support to understand the limits and potential benefits of genetic information beyond the clinic.