Alternative Dispute Resolution and Pediatric Clinical Ethics Consultation: Why the Limits of Ethical Expertise and the Indeterminacy of the Best Interests Standard Favor Mediation

Published in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolutio

Who Speaks for Me?: Addressing Variability in Informed Consent Practices for Minimal Risk Research Involving Foster Youth

Background: Youth in protective custody (i.e., foster care) are at higher risk for poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared with those who are not. These differences may be due in part to the lack of research on the population to create evidence-based recommendations for health care delivery. A potential contributor to this lack of research is difficulties in obtaining informed consent for empirical studies in this population. The objective of this study was to describe the approaches to obtaining informed consent in minimal risk studies of foster youth and provide recommendations for future requirements. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the informed consent approaches in published minimal risk research involving youth in foster care. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, and EBMR. Inclusion criteria were: studies conducted in the United States, included current foster youth, minimal risk, peer reviewed, and published in English. Full text was reviewed, and individuals required to consent and assent were extracted. Results: Forty-nine publications from 33 studies were identified. Studies required 0 to 3 individuals to consent. Individuals required to give consent included case workers (16, 48%), foster caregivers (12, 36%), biological parents (7, 21%), judges (5, 15%), and guardian ad litems (2, 6%). Twenty-nine (88%) studies required the youth’s assent. The studies used 14 different combinations of individuals. One (3%) study utilized a waiver of consent. Conclusions: There is no consistent approach for obtaining informed consent for foster youth to participate in minimal risk research. Consent should ideally involve individuals with legal authority and knowledge of the individual youth’s interests and should not be burdensome. Consensus regarding consent requirements may facilitate research involving foster youth

Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk!

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently issued recommendations for reporting incidental findings from clinical whole-genome sequencing and whole-exome sequencing. The recommendations call for evaluating a specific set of genes as part of all whole-genome sequencing/whole-exome sequencing and reporting all pathogenic variants irrespective of patient age. The genes are associated with highly penetrant disorders for which treatment or prevention is available. The effort to generate a list of genes with actionable findings is commendable, but the recommendations raise several concerns. They constitute a call for opportunistic screening, through intentional effort to identify pathogenic variants in specified genes unrelated to the clinical concern that prompted testing. Yet for most of the genes, we lack evidence about the predictive value of testing, genotype penetrance, spectrum of phenotypes, and efficacy of interventions in unselected populations. Furthermore, the recommendations do not allow patients to decline the additional findings, a position inconsistent with established norms. Finally, the recommendation to return adult-onset disease findings when children are tested is inconsistent with current professional consensus, including other policy statements of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Instead of premature practice recommendations, we call for robust dialogue among stakeholders to define a pathway to normatively sound, evidence-based guidelines