Sudden death: ethical and legal problems of post-mortem forensic genetic testing for hereditary cardiac diseases.

Hereditary non-structural diseases such as catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT), long QT, and the Brugada syndrome as well as structural disease such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) cause a significant percentage of sudden cardiac deaths in the young. In these cases, genetic testing can be useful and does not require proxy consent if it is carried out at the request of judicial authorities as part of a forensic death investigation. Mutations in several genes are implicated in arrhythmic syndromes, including SCN5A, KCNQ1, KCNH2, RyR2, and genes causing HCM. If the victim's test is positive, this information is important for relatives who might be themselves at risk of carrying the disease-causing mutation. There is no consensus about how professionals should proceed in this context. This article discusses the ethical and legal arguments in favour of and against three options: genetic testing of the deceased victim only; counselling of relatives before testing the victim; counselling restricted to relatives of victims who tested positive for mutations of serious and preventable diseases. Legal cases are mentioned that pertain to the duty of geneticists and other physicians to warn relatives. Although the claim for a legal duty is tenuous, recent publications and guidelines suggest that geneticists and others involved in the multidisciplinary approach of sudden death (SD) cases may, nevertheless, have an ethical duty to inform relatives of SD victims. Several practical problems remain pertaining to the costs of testing, the counselling and to the need to obtain permission of judicial authorities.

Retrospective research: What are the ethical and legal requirements?

Retrospective research is conducted on already available data and/or biologic material. Whether such research requires that patients specifically consent to the use of "their" data continues to stir controversy. From a legal and ethical point of view, it depends on several factors. The main criteria to be considered are whether the data or the sample is anonymous, whether the researcher is the one who collected it and whether the patient was told of the possible research use. In Switzerland, several laws delineate the procedure to be followed. The definition of "anonymous" is open to some interpretation. In addition, it is debatable whether consent waivers that are legally admissible for data extend to research involving human biological samples. In a few years, a new Swiss federal law on human research could clarify the regulatory landscape. Meanwhile, hospital-internal guidelines may impose stricter conditions than required by federal or cantonal law. Conversely, Swiss and European ethical texts may suggest greater flexibility and call for a looser interpretation of existing laws. The present article provides an overview of the issues for physicians, scientists, ethics committee members and policy makers involved in retrospective research in Switzerland. It aims at provoking more open discussions of the regulatory problems and possible future legal and ethical solutions.

Research involving biological material from forensic autopsies: legal and ethical issues.

Recommendations and laws do not always contain specific and clear provisions on the use of cadaveric material in research, and even more rarely do they address explicitly the ethical issues related to research on material obtained during forensic autopsy. In this article we analyse existing legal frameworks in Europe by comparing the legal provisions in 2 European Countries which are member states of the Council of Europe, the UK and Switzerland. They were chosen because they have distinct legal frameworks that make comparisons interesting. In addition, the detailed laws of the UK and a specific law project and national ethical recommendations in Switzerland permit us to define more clearly the legal range of options for researchers using cadaveric material obtained during forensic investigations. The Human Tissue Act 2004 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, its Scottish equivalent with the same title (2006) and the national ethical guidelines in Switzerland all require consent from the deceased person, an appropriate relative or a person with power of attorney for healthcare decisions before cadaveric biological material can be obtained and used for research. However, if the purpose of the autopsy is purely forensic, no such authorization will be sought to carry out the autopsy and related analyses, which might include genetic testing. In order to be allowed to carry out future research projects, families need to be approached for informed consent, unless the deceased person had left written directives including permission to use his or her tissues for research.

Ethics and adolescent care: an international perspective.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This update reviews the concepts underlying ethical issues in various contexts and countries, highlighting the evolution in the use of the core values underpinning the field and practice of bioethics as applied to healthcare. RECENT FINDINGS: It stresses the specific position of the adolescent as being a unique individual searching for autonomy and, most of the time, being competent to make decisions regarding the adolescent's own health. It briefly outlines the principles of a 'deliberative' approach in which the practitioner, while keeping in mind the legal context of the country where the practitioner is working, assesses to what extent the adolescent can be considered as competent, and then discusses with the adolescent the medical and psychosocial aspects of the various actions to be taken in a situation, as well as the basic ethical values linked with each of the various options available. The deliberation can involve relevant stakeholders, provided the issues concerning confidentiality have been fully discussed with the adolescent. SUMMARY: This process forces the practitioner, the adolescent patient and those who care for the adolescent patient to look outside their usual frameworks and make a decision that is in the best interest of the young person, and is informed by various ethical values.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

How family caregivers' medical and moral assumptions influence decision making for patients in the vegetative state: a qualitative interview study.

Background Decisions on limiting life-sustaining treatment for patients in the vegetative state (VS) are emotionally and morally challenging. In Germany, doctors have to discuss, together with the legal surrogate (often a family member), whether the proposed treatment is in accordance with the patient's will. However, it is unknown whether family members of the patient in the VS actually base their decisions on the patient's wishes. Objective To examine the role of advance directives, orally expressed wishes, or the presumed will of patients in a VS for family caregivers' decisions on life-sustaining treatment. Methods and sample A qualitative interview study with 14 next of kin of patients in a VS in a long-term care setting was conducted; 13 participants were the patient's legal surrogates. Interviews were analysed according to qualitative content analysis. Results The majority of family caregivers said that they were aware of aforementioned wishes of the patient that could be applied to the VS condition, but did not base their decisions primarily on these wishes. They gave three reasons for this: (a) the expectation of clinical improvement, (b) the caregivers' definition of life-sustaining treatments and (c) the moral obligation not to harm the patient. If the patient's wishes were not known or not revealed, the caregivers interpreted a will to live into the patient's survival and non-verbal behaviour. Conclusions Whether or not prior treatment wishes of patients in a VS are respected depends on their applicability, and also on the medical assumptions and moral attitudes of the surrogates. We recommend repeated communication, support for the caregivers and advance care planning.

Éthique et transfusion sanguine [Ethics and blood transfusion.]

Le don de sang représente un acte solidaire. Il est le plus souvent bénévole et, selon les pays et les circonstances, non rémunéré. Les éléments de la réflexion éthique sont, entre autres, l'augmentation des besoins, les critères d'exclusion de plus en plus nombreux, l'exigence sécuritaire et les modifications des structures de nos sociétés. Compte tenu de cela, les acteurs de la chaîne transfusionnelle doivent s'interroger sur certains paramètres : la valeur du don, le sens du bénévolat, l'opportunité de rémunérer l'acte de livrer une partie de soi, non plus comme un don et comme une expression d'altruisme et de solidarité, mais comme une prestation commerciale définie par des règles économiques. Blood donation is an act of solidarity. Most often, this act is done on a volunteer basis and, depending on countries and circumstances, is not remunerated. The increase in need, the always-greater number of deferral criteria, the safety issues and the changes in the structures of our societies are among the many subjects for ethical debates. Taking these into account, the actors of the transfusion must analyze certain parameters: the value of a donation, the meaning of volunteering, the appropriateness of remunerating the act of giving a part of one's self, no longer as a donation or an expression of altruism and solidarity, but as a commercial act regimented by economic laws.

The Original Risk: Over-Theologizing Ethics and Under-Theologizing Sin

The project of articulating a theological ethics on the basis of liturgical anthropology is bound to fail if the necessary consequence is that one has to quit the forum of critical modern rationality. The risk of Engelhardt's approach is to limit rationality to a narrow vision of reason. Sin is not to be understood as the negation of human holiness, but as the negation of divine holiness. The only way to renew theological ethics is to understand sin as the anthropological and ethical expression of the biblical message of the justification by faith only. Sin is therefore a secondary category, which can only by interpreted in light of the positive manifestation of liberation, justification, and grace. The central issue of Christian ethics is not ritual purity or morality, but experience, confession and recognition of our own injustice in our dealing with God and men.