Faculty Bibliography

Research involving recently deceased humans that are physiologically maintained following declaration of death by neurologic criteria-or 'research involving the recently deceased'-can fill a translational research gap while reducing harm to animals and living human subjects. It also creates new challenges for honouring the donor's legacy, respecting the rights of donor loved ones, resource allocation and public health. As this research model gains traction, new empirical ethics questions must be answered to preserve public trust in all forms of tissue donation and in the practice of medicine while respecting the legacy of the deceased and the rights of donor loved ones. This article suggests several topics for immediate investigation to understand the attitudes and experiences of researchers, clinical collaborators, donor loved ones and the public to ensure research involving the recently deceased advances ethically.

Under what circumstances, is it ethical to perform tumor surgery on a brain-dead individual? The neurosurgeons at Brigham and Women's Hospital were recently faced with such a question when asked to operate on a 28-year-old man who was pronounced brain-dead secondary to a severe brain-stem injury. His advanced directives clearly documented a desire for organ donation. During his transplant work-up, cranial imaging suggested a possible cerebellar mass of unknown etiology that was concerning for metastatic disease. Despite negative full body imaging, the neurosurgical team was asked to perform an open biopsy of the intracranial lesion to rule out occult systemic cancer. This case invites many nuanced questions related to the decisions surgeons and the broader medical community must make in the face of pursuing viable organs for the many in need. What is the moral standing and personhood eligibility of brain-dead individuals? What is the scope of medical interventions and procedures that surgeons are ethically bound to carry out? How ought the desire for increased medical intervention to try to save organs be balanced with practical limitations given limited medical resources?

IMPORTANCE:Genetic testing of gamete donors is becoming increasingly comprehensive and now often includes expanded carrier screening. Some argue that testing has gone too far, whereas others propose that testing is not extensive enough. Thinking critically about how much genetic testing is appropriate for gamete donors is crucial for ensuring that market forces alone do not determine the level of testing that is performed. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this paper is to highlight contradictions in the current approach toward genetic testing of gamete donors and to suggest that we either embrace the value of preventing the birth of children with hereditary diseases and do so in a logical and consistent manner or consider reducing our level of genetic testing for gamete donors. EVIDENCE REVIEW:The Food and Drug Administration requires screening for infectious diseases and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine recommends screening for a small number of common recessive conditions. However, private donor banks are increasingly performing karyotype testing and expanded carrier screening. FINDINGS:There are 2 major inconsistencies in our current approach to genetic testing of gamete donors: (1) if genetic information is valued by gamete recipients, why should testing stop with recessive conditions, and not expand to dominant conditions or even polygenic risk scoring? (2) Why should gamete donors be asked to undergo testing that may or may not be reciprocated by gamete recipients? Addressing these inconsistencies requires us to consider the ultimate goal of testing gamete donors' genes. We argue that the present, default goal is empowerment of gamete recipients, whereas an alternative and more laudable mission is to avoid preventable, heritable disease in offspring. However, the latter brings its own ethical and practical challenges, including the issue of which diseases are worth preventing. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE:A more comprehensive and well-reasoned approach to genetic testing of gamete donors is needed. Otherwise, testing will continue to be haphazard and guided by the free market, rather than deeper societal values.

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Abstract In Tyranny of the Gene: Personalized Medicine and Its Threat to Public Health (Knopf, 2023), James Tabery traces the ascendance of personalized or precision medicine in America, arguing that America's emphasis on genetics offers more hype than transformational power. In his examination of the power struggles, social relationships, and technological advances that centered the gene in American health policy, Tabery demonstrates how an intensive focus on genetics draws attention away from both the fundamental causes of health disparities and more-effective changes that could be made to developmental, physical, and social environments. American policy-makers, health care institutions, funders, and bioethicists should not let the technological shine and attractive politics of personalized medicine continue to replace the hard but necessary work of addressing sociopolitical causes of disease and illness.

A physician warns of the broader implications of pandemic backlash.