Faculty Bibliography

Transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) youth who suffer from gender dysphoria are at a substantially elevated risk of numerous adverse physical and psychosocial outcomes compared with their cisgender peers. Innovative treatment options used to support and affirm an individual's preferred gender identity can help resolve gender dysphoria and avoid many negative sequelae of nontreatment. Yet, despite advances in these relatively novel treatment options, which appear to be highly effective in addressing gender dysphoria and mitigating associated adverse outcomes, ethical challenges abound in ensuring that young patients receive appropriate, safe, affordable treatment and that access to this treatment is fair and equitable. Ethical considerations in gender-affirming care for TGNC youth span concerns about meeting the obligations to maximize treatment benefit to patients (beneficence), minimizing harm (nonmaleficence), supporting autonomy for pediatric patients during a time of rapid development, and addressing justice, including equitable access to care for TGNC youth. Moreover, although available data describing the use of gender-affirming treatment options are encouraging, and the risks of not treating TGNC youth with gender dysphoria are evident, little is known about the long-term effects of both hormonal and surgical interventions in this population. To support ethical decision-making about treatment options, we encourage the development of a comprehensive registry in the United States to track long-term patient outcomes. In the meantime, providers who work with TGNC youth and their families should endeavor to offer ethically sound, patient-centered, gender-affirming care based on the best currently available evidence.

Technical success has been achieved in several forms of vascularized composite allotransplantation, including hand, face, penis, and lower extremity. However, the risks of lifelong immunosuppression have limited these procedures to a select group of patients for whom nontransplant alternatives have resulted in unsatisfactory outcomes. Recent reports of facial allograft failure, and subsequent reconstruction using autologous tissues, have reinforced the idea that a surgical contingency plan must be in place in case this devastating complication occurs. Interestingly, backup plans in the setting of vascularized composite allotransplantation consist of the nontransplant alternatives that were deemed suboptimal in the first place. Moreover, these options may have been exhausted before transplantation, and may therefore be limited in the case of allograft loss or reamputation. In this article, the authors describe the surgical and nonsurgical alternatives to hand, face, penis, and lower extremity transplantation. In addition, the authors explore the ethical implications of approaching vascularized composite allotransplantation as a "last resort" or as a "high-risk, improved-outcome" procedure, focusing on whether nontransplant options eventually preclude vascularized composite allotransplantation, or whether vascularized composite allotransplantation limits future nontransplant reconstruction.

BACKGROUND:Despite the growing success of facial transplantation, organ donor shortages remain challenging. Educational health campaigns can effectively inform the general public and institute behavioral modifications. A brief educational introduction to facial transplantation may positively influence the public's position on facial donation. METHODS:The authors anonymously surveyed 300 participants, gathering basic demographic information, donor registration status, awareness of facial transplantation, and willingness to donate solid organs and facial allografts. Two-hundred of these participants were presented an educational video and subsequently resurveyed on facial donation. Factorial parametric analyses were performed to compare exposure responses before and after watching video exposure. RESULTS:Among participants completing the survey alone (control group), 49 percent were registered donors, 78 percent reported willingness to donate solid organs, and 52 percent reported willingness to donate facial allograft. Of participants who watched the video (video group) 52 percent were registered; 69 and 51 percent were willing to donate solid organs and face, respectively. Following educational intervention, 69 percent of participants in the video group reported willingness to donate facial tissue, an 18 percent increase (p < 0.05), that equated to those willing to donate solid organs. The greatest increase was observed among younger participants (23 percent); women (22 percent); Jewish (22 percent), Catholic (22 percent), and black/African American (25 percent) participants; and respondents holding a higher degree. No significant differences according to gender or ethnicity were observed. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Educational interventions hold much promise for increasing the general public's awareness of facial transplantation and willingness to participate in donation of facial allografts.

BACKGROUND:The scarcity of human organs requires the transplant community to make difficult allocation decisions. This process begins at individual medical centers, where transplant teams decide which patients to place on the transplant waiting list. Each transplant center utilizes its own listing criteria to determine if a patient is eligible for transplantation. These criteria have historically considered preexisting affective and psychotic disorders to be relative or absolute contraindications to transplantation. While attitudes within the field appear to be moving away from this practice, there is no data to confirm that eligibility criteria have changed. MAIN BODY/UNASSIGNED:There are no nationwide guidelines detailing the manner in which affective and psychotic disorders should impact transplant eligibility. Individual transplant centers thus form their own transplant eligibility criteria, resulting in significant inter-institution variability. Data from the 1990s indicates that the majority of transplant programs considered certain psychiatric illnesses, such as active schizophrenia, to be absolute contraindications to transplantation. A review of literature reveals that no comprehensive data has been collected on the topic since that time. Furthermore, the limited data available about current practices suggests that psychiatric illness continues to be viewed as a contraindication to transplantation at some transplant centers. In light of this finding, we review psychiatric literature that examines the impact of affective and psychotic disorders on transplant outcomes and conclude that the presence of these disorders is not an accurate predictor of transplant success. We then discuss the requirements of justice as they relate to the creation of a just organ allocation system. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We conclude that transplant eligibility criteria that exclude patients with affective and psychotic disorders on the basis of their psychiatric diagnosis alone are unjust. Just listing criteria must incorporate only those factors that have a causative effect on posttransplant morbidity and mortality. Justice also demands that we eliminate current inter-institution practice variations in favor of national transplant eligibility criteria. Given the limited data available about current practices, we call for an updated study investigating the manner in which affect and psychotic disorders impact transplant eligibility determinations.

BACKGROUND: For men with significant genitourinary injury, penile transplantation is being considered as an option when reconstruction is not feasible or proves unacceptable to the injured patient. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted to assess the current state of penile reconstruction and transplantation options, as well as to evaluate scholarly research addressing the ethical dimensions of penile transplantation. RESULTS: The state of penile transplantation is elementary. If reconstruction is not a possibility, proceeding ethically with research on penile vascularized composite allotransplantation will require the articulation of guidelines. To date, very little has been published in the scholarly literature assessing the ethics of penile transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should be developed to address penile transplantation and must cover the donation of tissue, consent, subject selection, qualifications of the surgical team, and management of both failure and patient dissatisfaction. Unless guidelines are established and disseminated, penile transplants should not be undertaken. The preliminary recommendations suggested in this article may help to inform development of guidelines.

The 11 original regions for organ allocation in the United States were determined by proximity between hospitals that provided deceased donors and transplant programs. As liver transplants became more successful and demand rose, livers became a scarce resource. A national system has been implemented to prioritize liver allocation according to disease severity, but the system still operates within the original procurement regions, some of which have significantly more deceased donor livers. Although each region prioritizes its sickest patients to be liver transplant recipients, the sickest in less liver-scarce regions get transplants much sooner and are at far lower risk of death than the sickest in more liver-scarce regions. This has resulted in drastic and inequitable regional variation in preventable liver disease related death rate.A new region districting proposal - an eight district model - has been carefully designed to reduce geographic inequities, but is being fought by many transplant centers that face less scarcity under the current model. The arguments put forth against the new proposal, couched in terms of fairness and safety, will be examined to show that the new system is technologically feasible, will save more lives, and will not worsen socioeconomic disparity. While the new model is likely not perfect, it is a necessary step toward fair allocation.

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.

Recent debate on whether physicians should discuss gun ownership with their patients has centered on determining whether gun injuries are an issue of health or safety, and on protecting patient privacy. Yet, physicians' duties span personal health, public health, and safety spheres, and they often must address private patient matters. To prioritize gun safety and reduce gun injuries, the primary policy-driving question should be: will physician counseling on gun ownership effectively reduce gun-related injuries without interfering with the physician's other treatment obligations or compromising the physician-patient relationship? Existing data on physician-initiated conversations with patients about guns support a positive prevention effect. However, it is critical that physician-initiated discussions of safe gun practices are not motivated by, nor convey, disapproval of gun ownership. To be ethical, respectful, and efficient, the conversation should be standard between primary care providers and all of their patients (not limited to patient subsets); questions and education should be limited to topics of gun-ownership risks and storage practices; and the conversation must be framed without bias against gun ownership.