Faculty Bibliography

Over 115 000 people are waiting for life-saving organ transplants, of whom a small fraction will receive transplants and many others will die while waiting. Existing efforts to expand the number of available organs, including increasing the number of registered donors and procuring organs in uncontrolled environments, are crucial but unlikely to address the shortage in the near future and will not improve donor/recipient compatibility or organ quality. If successful, organ bioengineering can solve the shortage and improve functional outcomes. Studying manufactured organs in animal models has produced valuable data, but is not sufficient to understand viability in humans. Before risking manufactured organ experimentation in living humans, study of bioengineered organs in recently deceased humans would facilitate evaluation of the function of engineered tissues and the complex interactions between the host and the transplanted tissue. Although such studies do not pose risk to human subjects, they pose unique ethical challenges concerning the previous wishes of the deceased, rights of surviving family members, effective operation and fair distribution of medical services, and public transparency. This article investigates the ethical, legal and social considerations in performing engineered organ research on the recently deceased.

Implementing uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) in the United States could markedly improve supply of donor lungs for patients in need of transplants. Evidence from U.S. pilot programs suggests families support uDCDD, but only if they are asked permission for using invasive organ preservation procedures prior to initiation. However, non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs may be applicable to the overwhelming majority of potential uDCDD donors that have airway devices in place as part of standard resuscitation. We propose an ethical framework for lung uDCDD by: (1) initiating post mortem preservation without requiring prior permission to protect the opportunity for donation until an authorized party can be found; (2) using non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs; and (3) maintaining strict separation between the healthcare team and the organ preservation team. Attempting uDCDD in this way has great potential to obtain more transplantable lungs while respecting donor autonomy and family wishes, securing public support, and enabling authorized persons to affirm or cease preservation decisions without requiring evidence of prior organ donation intent. It ensures prioritization of life-saving, the opportunity to allow willing donors to donate, and respect for bodily integrity while adhering to current ethical norms.

Vaccines for two viruses which cause cancer, human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV), are recommended for all children in the United States. Numerous parallels exist between the two vaccines in addition to their roles in cancer prevention, including transmission through sexual contact, multiple doses needed for series completion, and vaccine administration in adolescence for HPV and in the initial phase of the HBV vaccination program. All of these factors were viewed as potential barriers to achieving high rates of coverage, yet the ultimate success of the HBV vaccination program led to predictions that similarly high rates of coverage could be achieved for the HPV vaccine. However, currently, only the recommendation for HBV vaccination is supported by mandates for school entry in most states. Uptake of the HPV vaccine has lagged far behind U.S. goals for public health promotion. The aim of this paper is to examine factors which may account for the divergent pathways of the two vaccines. Four main factors are identified: logistical challenges of vaccine administration, attitudes of parents and healthcare providers, safety concerns, and cost. For each factor examined, recommendations are offered to confront similar barriers likely to arise for future vaccines. The authors conclude that gender-neutral state mandates coupled with school-located vaccination programs, stronger gender-neutral messaging from pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers, and younger age of vaccine administration, if approved, present the most promising approaches to improving uptake of the HPV vaccine, and similar vaccines down the road.

Healthcare rationing during pandemics has been widely discussed in global bioethics literature. However, existing scenarios and analyses have focused on high income countries, except for very few disease areas such as HIV treatment where some analyses related to African countries exist. We argue that the lack of scholastic discourse, and by extension, professional and democratic engagement on the subject constitute an unacceptable ethical omission. Not only have African governments failed to develop robust ethical plans for pandemics, ethicists in this region have been unable to ignite public discourse on rationing. Therefore, we aim to initiate a debate on how rationing health and social goods could be done ethically in Ghana during the current and future pandemics. The paper discusses and critiques some moral considerations (utilitarian, equity, equal worth, urgent need, and the prioritarian principles) for rationing and their relevance in the Ghanaian context. This contribution may facilitate ethical decision-making during the current (COVID-19) pandemic - in Ghana and other African settings where hardly any rationing guidelines exist.

Genetic testing is becoming more widespread, and its capabilities and predictive power are growing. In this paper, we evaluate the ethical justifications for and strength of the US legal framework that aims to protect patients, research participants, and consumers from genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance settings in the context of advancing genetic technology. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and other laws prohibit genetic and other health-related discrimination in the United States, but these laws have significant limitations, and some provisions are under threat. If accuracy and predictive power increase, specific instances of use of genetic information by employers may indeed become ethically justifiable; however, any changes to laws would need to be adopted cautiously, if at all, given that people have consented to genetic testing with the expectation that there would be no genetic discrimination in employment or health insurance settings. However, if our society values access to healthcare for both the healthy and the sick, we should uphold strict and broad prohibitions against genetic and health-related discrimination in the context of health insurance, including employer-based health insurance. This is an extremely important but often overlooked consideration in the current US debate on healthcare.