Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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.