Faculty Bibliography

The book reflects Fins' role as co-director of the Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury at Weill Cornell Medicine and the Rockefeller University and his struggle to answer the kinds of questions that stand to shape how society treats people with brain injuries. What is the capacity of brains to recover? What are the mechanisms of that recovery? How do we know that our assessments are accurately describing what's going on in a patient's mind? And what does society morally owe these patients and families?

Incidental and secondary findings have become an important by-product of diagnostic testing, and their ramifications affect clinical care, research, and policy. Given parallels in the reporting and management of such findings on diagnostic imaging, radiologists may draw from ongoing discussions in medical genetics to rethink more patient-centered approaches to analogous clinical, ethical, and medicolegal dilemmas. Low-risk incidental findings in particular may be drivers of unnecessary testing, invasive procedures, and overtreatment, with associated financial, psychological, and clinical consequences. As radiologists act in patients' best interests by strengthening standardized guidelines on how each finding merits further diagnostic testing or treatment, perhaps the greatest challenge for producing such guidelines is for low-risk incidental findings, for which adverse consequences are unlikely but associated with substantial uncertainty because of the lack of strong evidence on which to base the recommendations. More uniform recommendations for managing low-risk radiologic incidental findings should therefore aim to provide reasonable options that apply across a spectrum of patient preferences. These will require evaluation through research and will ultimately influence the quality of care. Specific areas for exploration may include (1) better gauging of patient attitudes and preferences regarding low-risk incidental findings, (2) using patient preferences to inform more uniform recommendations for low-risk findings that apply across a spectrum of preferences and help guide shared decision making, and (3) when patients endorse a strong preference not to discover low-risk incidental findings, how it might be possible for professional standards to curtail their generation in specific circumstances.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess the effectiveness and ethical dimensions of oocyte cryopreservation for both medical and social indications. RECENT FINDINGS: As more women are postponing motherhood for a variety of reasons, including lack of partner, for completing career plans and reaching financial stability, they are resorting to oocyte cryopreservation. To make informed choices, women rely on their primary care physicians (PCPs) for initial advice, but PCPs are not always fully prepared to discuss oocyte cryopreservation. Interestingly, there are mixed feelings among obstetricians/gynecologists on whether oocyte cryopreservation should be used for elective reasons, whereas it is fully supported for medical indications. SUMMARY: Oocyte vitrification has become an established procedure for safeguarding future reproductive chances for medical reasons, and its use is progressively expanding. There is an urgent need in preparing future PCPs and obstetricians/gynecologists as to how to initiate discussions with their patients about elective oocyte banking consistent with fully respecting patient autonomy so as to facilitate informed decisions.

The men and women who serve in the armed forces, in the words of Major General Joseph Caravalho, "sign a blank check, co-signed by their families, payable to the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines, up to and including their lives." It is human nature to consider such a pact in polarized terms; the pact concludes in either a celebratory homecoming or funereal mourning. But in reality, surviving catastrophic injury may incur the greatest debt. The small but real possibility of losing the ability to bear biological children due to genitourinary combat injury has been a topic of discussion in hushed tones, behind closed doors. But as policy changes move the conversation into the open, we must be fully aware of the far-reaching and long-term impacts of decisions on those who have sustained genitourinary injury. In January 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter outlined a set of reforms that would improve the quality of life for military families by recognizing the importance of maintaining fertility, even in the face of severe injury. This first promising step could build a solid foundation of insuring fertility preservation for wounded service members with genitourinary injury, and it could set a precedent beyond the military for insuring treatment for people who have lost their reproductive capacity. Thus, the ethical challenges raised by the new policy require careful analysis.

Years ago, one of us had the opportunity to talk with a starting guard in the National Basketball Association about his health care. The player, then a rookie, did not have his own personal doctor. Instead, he received his health care from the team doctor. This athlete was very well paid and could have received care anywhere he wished in the area. But he came from a very poor neighborhood. Growing up, he said, he had no health care other than hearing and eye tests done at his school and maybe (he was not sure) vaccinations given by the school nurse. The player said he now felt fine and trusted his team to look out for his health since they were paying him a lot of money and obviously wanted him on the court. While it might seem obvious that conflicts of role could arise for doctors working simultaneously for a team and for an athlete-wanting to please coaches, owners, and maybe fans while looking out for the athletes on the team-that is not how this young player saw things. He trusted his team and those who worked for them, and he figured that their interest in keeping him healthy overlapped nicely with his interest in staying healthy. As someone who did not get much access to health care as a child and had little need for it, he did not have concerns about conflicts of interest and second opinions foremost in his mind. But as is clear from a recent scandal involving the National Football League and concussion research, there are reasons for concern when athletes deal with health care workers paid by their teams.

We examine ethical challenges encountered in the design of an effectiveness trial (CTN-0051; X:BOT), comparing sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), an established treatment for opioid dependence, to the newer extended-release injectable naltrexone (XR-NTX). Ethical issues surrounded: 1) known poor effectiveness of one possible, commonly used treatment as usual control condition-detoxification followed by counseling without medication; 2) the role of patients' preferences for treatments, given that treatments were clinically approved and available to the population; 3) differences between the optimal "usual treatment" clinical settings for different treatments making it challenging to design a fair comparison; 4) vested interest groups favoring different treatments exerting potential influence on the design process; 5) potentially vulnerable populations of substance users and prisoners; 6) potential therapeutic misconception in the implementation of safety procedures; and 7) high cost of a large trial limiting questions that could be addressed. We examine how the design features underlying these ethical issues are characteristic of effectiveness trials, which are often large trials that compare treatments with varying degrees of existing effectiveness data and familiarity to patients and clinicians, in community-based treatment settings, with minimal exclusion criteria that could involve vulnerable populations. Hence, investigators designing effectiveness trials may wish to remain alert to the possibility of similar ethical issues.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the caliber of education mainstream media provides the public about brain death. METHODS: We reviewed articles published prior to July 31, 2015 on the most shared/heavily trafficked mainstream media websites of 2014 using the names of patients from two highly publicized brain death cases, 'Jahi McMath' and 'Marlise Munoz.' RESULTS: We reviewed 208 unique articles. The subject was referred to as being 'alive' or on 'life support' in 72% (149) of the articles, 97% (144) of which also described the subject as being brain dead. A definition of brain death was provided in 4% (9) of the articles. Only 7% (14) of the articles noted that organ support should be discontinued after brain death declaration unless a family has agreed to organ donation. Reference was made to well-known cases of patients in persistent vegetative states in 16% (34) of articles and 47% (16) of these implied both patients were in the same clinical state. CONCLUSIONS: Mainstream media provides poor education to the public on brain death. Because public understanding of brain death impacts organ and tissue donation, it is important for physicians, organ procurement organizations, and transplant coordinators to improve public education on this topic

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate how neurologists approach situations in which families request prolonged organ support after declaration of death by neurologic criteria (DNC). METHODS: We surveyed 938 members of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) who treat critically ill patients, including 50% who practice in states with accommodation exceptions (states that require religious or moral beliefs to be taken into consideration when declaring death or discontinuing organ support: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York), and 50% who practice in nonaccommodation states. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 201/938 individuals (21% response rate), 96 of whom were from accommodation states and 105 of whom were from nonaccommodation states. Both groups reported encountering situations in which families requested continuation of organ support after DNC (48% from accommodation states and 46% from nonaccommodation states). In a hypothetical scenario where a request is made to continue organ support after DNC (outside of organ donation), 48% of respondents indicated they would continue support due to fear of litigation. In reply to an open-ended question, respondents requested that the AAN generate guidelines and advocate to codify laws regarding organ support after DNC, and to improve public and physician education on DNC. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is relatively common for neurologists who treat critically ill patients to encounter families who object to discontinuation of organ support after DNC at some point during their career. It would be beneficial for physicians, families, and society to rely on clear medicolegal guidelines on management of this situation.