Consent, Autonomy, and the Benefits of Healthy Limb Amputation: Examining the Legality of Surgically Managing Body Integrity Identity Disorder in New Zealand

Upon first consideration, the desire of an individual to amputate a seemingly healthy limb is a foreign, perhaps unsettling, concept. It is, however, a reality faced by those who suffer from body integrity identity disorder (BIID). In seeking treatment, these individuals request surgery that challenges both the statutory provisions that sanction surgical operations and the limits of consent as a defence in New Zealand. In doing so, questions as to the influence of public policy and the extent of personal autonomy become important. Beyond legal issues, BIID confronts dominant conceptions of bodily integrity, medical treatment, and ethical obligations. This paper seeks to identify the relevant public policy concerns raised by BIID in New Zealand and the limits of autonomy, before moving on to consider how BIID sufferers may legally seek the treatment they require and how a doctor might be protected from criminal proceedings for assault for performing this treatment. It will be argued that it is possible to legally consent to the amputation of a healthy limb as medical treatment and that public perception should not be allowed to take precedence over this right.     

Gaining face or losing face? Framing the debate on face transplants

An American surgical team has announced its intention to perform the first human facial transplantation. The team has, however, invited further analysis of the ethical issues before it proceeds and in this paper we take up that challenge in seeking to frame the debate with a particular focus on the recipients of the transplant. We address seven related areas of concern and identify numerous questions that require answers or, perhaps, better answers. We start by examining the nature of the procedure and its intended benefits, why the procedure is being developed, and whether or not this should be viewed as experimental. Having concluded that this is experimental in nature, we then consider the broad question, who is the patient? Here we perceive difficulties in terms of the autonomy of the recipient, the unpredictable effects of receiving the transplant, and the role and influence of society. We conclude by asking whether the question should be 'whether or not?' rather than 'when?', particularly while the risks of losing face appear to far outweigh the likelihood of gaining face.     

THE ETHICS OF UTERUS TRANSPLANTATION

Human uterus transplantation (UTx) is currently under investigation as a treatment for uterine infertility. Without a uterus transplant, the options available to women with uterine infertility are adoption or surrogacy; only the latter has the potential for a genetically related child. UTx will offer recipients the chance of having their own pregnancy. This procedure occurs at the intersection of two ethically contentious areas: assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and organ transplantation. In relation to organ transplantation, UTx lies with composite tissue transplants such as face and limb grafts, and shares some of the ethical concerns raised by these non‐life saving procedures. In relation to ART, UTx represents one more avenue by which a woman may seek to meet her reproductive goals, and as with other ART procedures, raises questions about the limits of reproductive autonomy. This paper explores the ethical issues raised by UTx with a focus on the potential gap between women's desires and aspirations about pregnancy and the likely functional outcomes of successful UTx.     

Defining Ourselves: Personal Bioinformation as a Tool of Narrative Self-Conception

Where ethical or regulatory questions arise about an individual’s interests in accessing bioinformation about herself (such as findings from screening or health research), the value of this information has traditionally been construed in terms of its clinical utility. It is increasingly argued, however, that the “personal utility” of findings should also be taken into account. This article characterizes one particular aspect of personal utility: that derived from the role of personal bioinformation in identity construction. The suggestion that some kinds of information are relevant to identity is not in itself new. However, the account outlined here seeks to advance the debate by proposing a conception of the relationship between bioinformation and identity that does not depend on essentialist assumptions and applies beyond the narrow genetic contexts in which identity is customarily invoked. The proposal is that the identity-value of personal bioinformation may be understood in terms of its instrumental role in the construction of our narrative identities, specifically that its value lies in helping us to develop self-narratives that support us in navigating our embodied existences. I argue that this narrative conception provides useful insights that are pertinent to the ethical governance of personal bioinformation. It illuminates a wider range of ethical considerations in relation to information access; it accounts for variations in the utility of different kinds of information; and it highlights that the context in which information is conveyed can be as important as whether it is disclosed at all. These arguments are illustrated using an example drawn from psychiatric neuroimaging research.     

Equity Under the Knife: Justice and Evidence in Surgery

Surgery is an increasingly common and expensive mode of medical intervention. The ethical dimensions of the surgeon‐patient relationship, including respect for personal autonomy and informed consent, are much discussed; but broader equity issues have not received the same attention. This paper extends the understanding of surgical ethics by considering the nature of evidence in surgery and its relationship to a just provision of healthcare for individuals and their populations.     

Vulnerability and the Ethics of Facial Tissue Transplantation

Two competing intuitions have dominated the debate over facial tissue transplantation. On one side are those who argue that relieving the suffering of those with severe facial disfigurement justifies the medical risks and possible loss of life associated with this experimental procedure. On the other are those who say that there is little evidence to show that such transplants would have longterm psychological benefits that couldn’t be achieved by other means and that without clear benefits, the risk is simply too great. Ethicists on both sides have called for more analysis of the link between the face and personal identity in order to get a better grasp on potential gains and losses. This paper responds to that call by looking at contemporary philosophical analyses of the relation between organ transplants and personal identity and between the human face, human dignity, and human vulnerability. It is argued that the face matters not because it is the unique marker of our identity, but because of its role in the intersubjective constitution of moral identity and human dignity.     

Equipoise,design bias,and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development

The concept of 'equipoise', or the 'uncertainty principle', has been represented as a central ethical principle, and holds that a subject may be enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) only if there is true uncertainty about which of the trial arms is most likely to benefit the patient. We sought to estimate the frequency with which equipoise conditions were met in industry-sponsored RCTs in rheumatology, to explore the reasons for any deviations from equipoise, to examine the concept of 'design bias', and to consider alternative ethical formulations that might improve subject safety and autonomy. We studied abstracts accepted for the 2001 American College of Rheumatology meetings that reported RCTs, acknowledged industry sponsorship, and had clinical end-points (n = 45), and examined the proportion of studies that favored the registration or marketing of the sponsor's drug. In every trial (45/45) results were favorable to the sponsor, indicating that results could have been predicted in advance solely by knowledge of sponsorship (P < 0.0001). Equipoise clearly was being systematically violated. Publication bias appeared to be an incomplete explanation for this dramatic result; this bias occurs after a study is completed. Rather, we hypothesize that 'design bias', in which extensive preliminary data are used to design studies with a high likelihood of being positive, is the major cause of the asymmetric results. Design 'bias' occurs before the trial is begun and is inconsistent with the equipoise principle. However, design bias increases scientific efficiency, decreases drug development costs, and limits the number of subjects required, probably reducing aggregate risks to participants. Conceptual and ethical issues were found with the equipoise principle, which encourages performance of negative studies; ignores patient values, patient autonomy, and social benefits; is applied at a conceptually inappropriate decision point (after randomization rather than before); and is in conflict with the Belmont, Nuremberg, and other sets of ethical principles, as well as with US Food and Drug Administration procedures. We propose a principle of 'positive expected outcomes', which informs the assessment that a trial is ethical, together with a restatement of the priority of personal autonomy.     

Autonomy is a Right,Not a Feat: How Theoretical Misconceptions have Muddled the Debate on Dynamic Consent to Biobank Research

Should people be involved as active participants in longitudinal medical research, as opposed to remaining passive providers of data and material? We argue in this article that misconceptions of ‘autonomy’ as a kind of feat rather than a right are to blame for much of the confusion surrounding the debate of dynamic versus broad consent. Keeping in mind two foundational facts of human life, freedom and dignity, we elaborate three moral principles – those of autonomy, integrity and authority – to better see what is at stake. Respect for autonomy is to recognize the other's right to decide in matters that are important to them. Respect for integrity is to meet, in one's relationship with the other, their need to navigate the intersection between private and social life. Respect for authority is to empower the other – to help them to cultivate their responsibility as citizens. On our account, to force information onto someone who does not want it is not to respect that person's autonomy, but to violate integrity in the name of empowerment. Empowerment, not respect for autonomy, is the aim that sets patient‐centred initiatives employing a dynamic consent model apart from other consent models. Whether this is ultimately morally justified depends on whether empowerment ought to be a goal of medical research, which is questionable.     

Whose autonomy,whose interests? A donor-focused analysis of surrogacy and egg donation from the global South

This article provides a donor-focused analysis of how transnational reproductive donation intersects with issues central to bodily autonomy of surrogates and egg donors from the global South. Little is known about the autonomy of surrogates and egg donors, especially among those from the global South. This article addresses this gap by examining two key issues on surrogacy and egg donation—conflict of interest and recruitment market. With these issues, this paper presents contexts of the reproductive body as a space of contestation for autonomy. Analysis reveals that bodily autonomy is not an absolute entitlement available for surrogates and egg donors from the global South. Having bodily autonomy is a privileged disposition rather than a universal liberty for reproductive donors. The discussions in this work encourage further examination to understand the multi-layered experiences of reproductive donors from the global South, towards deeper interrogation of the processes of reproductive industry.     

Research ethics and the challenge of whole-genome sequencing

The recent completion of the first two individual whole-genome sequences is a research milestone. As personal genome research advances, investigators and international research bodies must ensure ethical research conduct. We identify three major ethical considerations that have been implicated in whole-genome research: the return of research results to participants; the obligations, if any, that are owed to participants' relatives; and the future use of samples and data taken for whole-genome sequencing. Although the issues are not new, we discuss their implications for personal genomics and provide recommendations for appropriate management in the context of research involving individual whole-genome sequencing.     

FROM THE EDITORS

The shortage of organs and tissues for transplantation in infants is particularly severe. Caplan considers the moral and public policy implications of utilizing abortuses and brain dead or anencephalic infants as donors. Arguments favoring their use include the potential benefits for research, benefits to existing infants born with fatal conditions, the ethical cost of relying on primates as sources of organs, and the providing of solace to grieving parents. Arguments against their use include the potential for coercion or conflict of interest in parental decisions about donation, the possibility that abortion may be encouraged, the fact that brain death is difficult to diagnose in infants while organ procurement from anencephalics may be considered murder, and the charge that an increase in infant transplants would be too costly. Caplan concludes that the arguments for using abortuses, anencephalics, and brain dead infants as organ and tissue donors outweigh the arguments against.     

“They want to know where they came from”: population genetics,identity, and family genealogy

This paper discusses the changing relationship between population genetics, family genealogy and identity. It reports on empirical research with participants in a genetic study who anticipated that personal feedback on the analysis of their donated samples would elucidate aspects of their own family genealogies. The paper also documents how geneticists, building on the practices of offering personal feedback to research participants, have developed genetic tests marketed directly to people wishing to trace their ancestry. Some of the social and ethical issues raised by this development in the use of genetic testing are considered.     

"They want to know where they came from": population genetics, identity, and family genealogy

This paper discusses the changing relationship between population genetics, family genealogy and identity. It reports on empirical research with participants in a genetic study who anticipated that personal feedback on the analysis of their donated samples would elucidate aspects of their own family genealogies. The paper also documents how geneticists, building on the practices of offering personal feedback to research participants, have developed genetic tests marketed directly to people wishing to trace their ancestry. Some of the social and ethical issues raised by this development in the use of genetic testing are considered.     

Human genetic banking: altruism, benefit and consent

This article considers how we should frame the ethical issues raised by current proposals for large-scale genebanks with on-going links to medical and lifestyle data, such as the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council's 'UK Biobank'. As recent scandals such as Alder Hey have emphasised, there are complex issues concerning the informed consent of donors that need to be carefully considered. However, we believe that a preoccupation with informed consent obscures important questions about the purposes to which such collections are put, not least that they may be only haphazardly used for research (especially that of commercial interest)--an end that would not fairly reflect the original altruistic motivation of donors, and the trust they must invest. We therefore argue that custodians of such databases take on a weighty pro-active duty, to encourage public debate about the ends of such collections and to sponsor research that reflects publicly agreed priorities and provides public benefits.     

Ethical Issues in Field Trials of Genetically Modified Disease‐Resistant Mosquitoes

Mosquito‐borne diseases take a tremendous toll on human populations, especially in developing nations. In the last decade, scientists have developed mosquitoes that have been genetically modified to prevent transmission of mosquito‐borne diseases, and field trials have been conducted. Some mosquitoes have been rendered infertile, some have been equipped with a vaccine they transmit to humans, and some have been designed to resist diseases. This article focuses on ethical issues raised by field trials of disease‐resistant, genetically modified mosquitoes. Some of these issues include: protecting the public and the environment from harm, balancing benefits and risks, collaborating with the local community, avoiding exploitation, and safeguarding the rights and welfare of research subjects. One of the most difficult problems involves protecting the welfare of community members who will be impacted by the release of mosquitoes but who are not enrolled in the study as research subjects. To address this concern, field trials should take place only when the targeted disease is a significant public health problem in an isolated area, the benefits of the trial for the community are likely to outweigh the risks, community leaders approve of the trial, and there are measures in place to protect the welfare of un‐enrolled community members, such as informing the community about the study and offering free treatment to people who contract mosquito‐borne diseases. Since the justification of any field trial depends on a careful examination of the scientific and ethical issues, proposed studies should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis.     

DIAGNOSTIC SELF‐TESTING: AUTONOMOUS CHOICES AND RELATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Diagnostic self‐testing devices are being developed for many illnesses, chronic diseases and infections. These will be used in hospitals, at point‐of‐care facilities and at home. Designed to allow earlier detection of diseases, self‐testing diagnostic devices may improve disease prevention, slow the progression of disease and facilitate better treatment outcomes. These devices have the potential to benefit both the individual and society by enabling individuals to take a more proactive role in the maintenance of their health and by helping society improve health and reduce health costs. However, the full implications of future home‐based diagnostic technology for individuals and society remain unclear due to their novelty. We argue that the development of diagnostic tools, especially for home use, will heighten a number of ethical challenges. This paper will explore some of the ethical implications of home‐based self‐testing diagnostic devices for the autonomous and relational dimensions of the person. This will be facilitated by examining the impact of diagnostic devices for individual autonomy, for the delivery of accurate diagnosis and for the personal significance of the information for the user. The latter will be examined using Charles Taylor's view of personhood and his emphasis on human agency and interpretation. While the ethical issues are not necessarily new, the development of home‐based self‐testing diagnostic devices will make issues regarding autonomy, accuracy of information and personal significance more and more demanding. This will be the case particularly when an individual's autonomous choices come into conflict with the person's relational responsibilities.     

Presuming patient autonomy in the face of therapeutic misconception

Therapeutic misconception involves the failure of subjects either to understand or to incorporate into their own expectations the distinctions in nature and purpose of personally responsive therapeutic care, and the generic relationship between subject and investigator which is constrained by research protocols. Researchers cannot disregard this phenomenon if they are to ensure that subjects engage in research on the basis of genuine informed consent. However, our presumption of patient autonomy must be sustained unless we have compelling evidence of serious misunderstanding. This article argues that the mere expression of aspects of therapeutic misconception should not necessarily displace the presumption of subject autonomy or undermine ethical inclusion in research for at least three reasons. First, some interpretations of the empirical data do not suggest misunderstanding. Second, assessment of misestimation and optimism are delicate and value‐laden, and turn quickly from questions of autonomy to questions of judgment. Third, incomplete understanding may yet be sufficient to allow a subject to engage in a substantially autonomous decision‐making process. Our point is not to dismiss the possibility of genuine therapeutic misconception, but to question its frequency and fatality to the consent process.     

CULTURAL CIRCUMCISION IN EU PUBLIC HOSPITALS – AN ETHICAL DISCUSSION

The paper explores the ethical aspects of introducing cultural circumcision of children into the EU public health system.
We reject commonplace arguments against circumcision: considerations of good medical practice, justice, bodily integrity, autonomy and the analogy from female genital mutilation.
From the unique structure of patient-medicine interaction, we argue that the incorporation of cultural circumcision into EU public health services is a kind of medicalization, which does not fit the ethos of universal healthcare. However, we support a utilitarian argument that finds hospital-based circumcision safer than non-medicalized alternatives.
The argument concerning medicalization and the utilitarian argument both rely on preliminary empirical data, which depend on future validation.     

Ethical Implications of Case‐Based Payment in China: A Systematic Analysis

How health care providers are paid affects how medicine is practiced. It is thus important to assess provider payment models not only from the economic perspective but also from the ethical perspective. China recently started to reform the provider payment model in the health care system from fee‐for‐service to case‐based payment. This paper aims to examine this transition from an ethical perspective. We collected empirical studies on the impact of case‐based payment in the Chinese health care system and applied a systematic ethical matrix that integrates clinical ethics and public health ethics to analyze the empirical findings. We identified eleven prominent ethical issues related to case‐based payment. Some ethical problems of case‐based payment in China are comparable to ethical problems of managed care and diagnosis related groups in high‐income countries. However, in this paper we discuss in greater detail four specific ethical issues in the Chinese context: professionalism, the patient‐physician relationship, access to care and patient autonomy. Based on the analysis, we cautiously infer that case‐based payment is currently more ethically acceptable than fee‐for‐service in the context of China, mainly because it seems to lower financial barriers to access care. Nonetheless, it will be difficult to justify the implementation of case‐based payment if no additional measures are taken to monitor and minimize its existing negative ethical implications.     

Human genetic banking: altruism,benefit and consent

This article considers how we should frame the ethical issues raised by current proposals for large‐scale genebanks with on‐going links to medical and lifestyle data, such as the Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council's ‘UK Biobank’. As recent scandals such as Alder Hey have emphasised, there are complex issues concerning the informed consent of donors that need to be carefully considered. However, we believe that a preoccupation with informed consent obscures important questions about the purposes to which such collections are put, not least that they may be only haphazardly used for research (especially that of commercial interest)—an end that would not fairly reflect the original altruistic motivation of donors, and the trust they must invest. We therefore argue that custodians of such databases take on a weighty pro‐active duty, to encourage public debate about the ends of such collections and to sponsor research that reflects publicly agreed priorities and provides public benefits.