An assessment of the moral value of neuronal cell models and brain organoids

Advances in stem cell technology enable neuroscientists to develop induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-based neuronal models of varying complexity, ranging from single human brain cells to two-dimensional neuronal cell models and three-dimensional brain organoids. While the discussion on the moral status of brain organoids is taking center stage in the bioethical literature and is invariably linked to the presumed capacity of future brain organoids to develop some form of consciousness, analyses of the moral status of other – less complex – iPSC-based neuronal models are lacking. In this paper we aim to clarify the moral value of various types of existing neuronal models, including brain organoids. We show how it is made up of several layers that may encompass various sorts of considerations, including moral values, the results of empirical research, and biological characteristics. We identify four such layers – instrumental, intrinsic, symbolic, and relational – that are relevant for the assessment of the moral value of neuronal models. We demonstrate that it lies not in a capacity to develop some form of consciousness (which is absent in current iPSC-based neuronal models, including brain organoids), but in other considerations, including the genetic links between models and donors, the ability of models to mimic brain (dys)function, and their symbolic value, all of which are often overlooked in the bioethical literature. Also, we demonstrate that the 'thickness' of the layers (i.e., their moral weight) increases when the neuronal model is more complex. Finally, we discuss the practical-ethical implications of our analysis for the use of neuronal models in research settings, for instance in relation to informed consent and biobank governance. Our four-layer framework can be applied also in moral assessments of other iPSC-based models, including emerging and future cell models

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life:a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice

Background:Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients’ homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. Results: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. Conclusions: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. Trial registration: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19–435/C).</p

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life: a qualitative interview-study among health care providers on an evolving practice

Background: Continuous deep sedation (CDS) can be used for patients at the end of life who suffer intolerably from severe symptoms that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the Netherlands, the use of CDS is guided by an national guideline since 2005. The percentage of patients for whom CDS is used increased from 8% of all patients who died in 2005 to 18% in 2015. The aim of this study is to explore potential causes of the rise in the use of CDS in the Netherlands according to health care providers who have been participating in this practice. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted and thematically analysed. Participants were Dutch health care providers (HCPs), working at patients’ homes, hospices, elderly care facilities and in hospitals and experienced in providing CDS, who were recruited via purposeful sampling. Results: 41 Health care providers participated in an interview. For these HCPs the reason to start CDS is often a combination of symptoms resulting in a refractory state. HCPs indicated that symptoms of non-physical origin are increasingly important in the decision to start CDS. Most HCPs felt that suffering at the end of life is less tolerated by patients, their relatives, and sometimes by HCPs; they report more requests to relieve suffering by using CDS. Some HCPs in our study have experienced increasing pressure to perform CDS. Some HCPs stated that they more often used intermittent sedation, sometimes resulting in CDS. Conclusions: This study provides insight into how participating HCPs perceive that their practice of CDS changed over time. The combination of a broader interpretation of refractory suffering by HCPs and a decreased tolerance of suffering at the end of life by patients, their relatives and HCPs, may have led to a lower threshold to start CDS. Trial registration: The Research Ethics Committee of University Medical Center Utrecht assessed that the study was exempt from ethical review according to Dutch law (Protocol number 19–435/C)

Dynamic consent, communication and return of results in large-scale health data reuse: Survey of public preferences

Dynamic consent forms a comprehensive, tailored approach for interacting with research participants. We conducted a survey study to inquire how research participants evaluate the elements of consent, information provision, communication and return of results within dynamic consent in a hypothetical health data reuse scenario. We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patient panel members. Data were analysed using descriptive and nonparametric inferential statistics. Respondents favoured the potential to manage changing consent preferences over time. There was much agreement between people favouring closer and more specific control over data reuse approval and those in favour of broader approval, facilitated by an opt-out system or an independent data reuse committee. People want to receive more information about reuse, outcomes and return of results. Respondents supported an interactive model of research participation, welcoming regular, diverse and interactive forms of communication, like a digital communication platform. Approval for reuse and providing meaningful information, including meaningful return of results, are intricately related to facilitating better communication. Respondents favoured return of actionable research results. These findings emphasize the potential of dynamic consent for enabling participants to maintain control over how their data are being used for which purposes by whom . Allowing different options to shape a dynamic consent interface in health data reuse in a personalized manner is pivotal to accommodate plurality in a flexible though robust manner. Interaction via dynamic consent enables participants to tailor the elements of participation they deem relevant to their own preferences, engaging diverse perspectives, interests and preferences

Symptom evolution in the dying

Objective: Provide insight in the prevalence of symptoms in patients who are in the last days of life. Methods: A retrospective descriptive analysis of data on patients who died between 2012 and 2019 at the age of 18 or older in 1 of 20 Dutch healthcare facilities, including hospitals, inpatient hospices and long-term care facilities. We analysed data from 4 hourly registrations in the Care Programme for the Dying Person, to assess for how many patients symptom-related goals of care were not achieved. We looked at the first 4 hours episode after the start of the Care Programme and the last 4 hours episode prior to death. Results: We analysed records of 2786 patients. In the first 4 hours episode, at least one symptom-related care goal was not achieved for 28.5%-42.8% of patients, depending on the care setting. In the last 4 hours episode, these percentages were 17.5%-26.9%. Care goals concerning pain and restlessness were most often not achieved: percentages varied from 7.3% to 20.9% for pain and from 9.3% to 21.9% for restlessness. Conclusions: Symptom control at the end of life is not optimal in a substantial minority of patients. Systematic assessment and attention as well as further research on symptom management are of the essence

Regulatory sanctions for ethically relevant GCP violations

Although EU inspectors and clinical assessors are mandated to identify and act upon ethical issues, regulators lack guidance on how this can be done. Hence, we propose a four-step regulatory approach on ethically relevant GCP violation findings. The first step is identification of the ethical issue. Next is analysis [i.e., identifying the gravity (intensity or severity) and the magnitude (amount and duration) of the ethics violation as well as the responsible person(s) or entity or entities]. The third step is evaluation, (i.e., the process of deliberating to determine the significance of the ethics violation, with the intention of identifying the most reasonable sanction and/or corrective or reparative action). Last is decision-making or the process of choosing and implementing a regulatory course of action

A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research

BACKGROUND: When healthcare professionals or other involved parties prevent eligible patients from entering a trial as a research subject, they are gatekeeping. This phenomenon is a persistent problem in palliative care research and thought to be responsible for the failure of many studies. AIM: To identify potential gatekeepers and explore their reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. DESIGN: A 'Review of Reasons' based on the systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach and a thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 20 2015 were searched. Studies in children (aged <18 years) and patients with dementia were excluded. RESULTS: Thirty papers on gatekeeping in palliative care research were included. Five groups of potential gatekeepers were identified: healthcare professionals, research ethics committees, management, relatives and researchers. The fear of burdening vulnerable patients was the most reported reason for gatekeeping. Other reasons included 'difficulty with disclosure of health status', 'fear of burdening the patient's relatives', 'doubts about the importance or quality of the study', 'reticent attitude towards research and (research) expertise' and 'logistics'. In hospice and homecare settings, the pursuit of comfort care may trigger a protective attitude. Gatekeeping is also rooted in a (perceived) lack of skills to recruit patients with advanced illness. CONCLUSION: Gatekeeping is motivated by the general assumption of vulnerability of patients, coupled with an emphasis on the duty to protect patients. Research is easily perceived as a threat to patient well-being, and the benefits appear to be overlooked. The patients' perspective concerning study participation is needed to gain a full understanding and to address gatekeeping in palliative care research

A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research

BACKGROUND: When healthcare professionals or other involved parties prevent eligible patients from entering a trial as a research subject, they are gatekeeping. This phenomenon is a persistent problem in palliative care research and thought to be responsible for the failure of many studies. AIM: To identify potential gatekeepers and explore their reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research. DESIGN: A 'Review of Reasons' based on the systematic Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach and a thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and PsycINFO from 2000 to May 20 2015 were searched. Studies in children (aged <18 years) and patients with dementia were excluded. RESULTS: Thirty papers on gatekeeping in palliative care research were included. Five groups of potential gatekeepers were identified: healthcare professionals, research ethics committees, management, relatives and researchers. The fear of burdening vulnerable patients was the most reported reason for gatekeeping. Other reasons included 'difficulty with disclosure of health status', 'fear of burdening the patient's relatives', 'doubts about the importance or quality of the study', 'reticent attitude towards research and (research) expertise' and 'logistics'. In hospice and homecare settings, the pursuit of comfort care may trigger a protective attitude. Gatekeeping is also rooted in a (perceived) lack of skills to recruit patients with advanced illness. CONCLUSION: Gatekeeping is motivated by the general assumption of vulnerability of patients, coupled with an emphasis on the duty to protect patients. Research is easily perceived as a threat to patient well-being, and the benefits appear to be overlooked. The patients' perspective concerning study participation is needed to gain a full understanding and to address gatekeeping in palliative care research

The ethics of cluster-randomized trials requires further evaluation : A refinement of the Ottawa Statement

Objectives The Ottawa Statement is the first guidance document for the ethical and scientific conduct of cluster-randomized trials (CRTs). However, not all recommendations are straightforward to implement. In this paper we will reflect in particular on the recommendation on identifying human research subjects and the issue to what extent the randomization process should be disclosed if there is a risk of contamination. Study Design and Setting The Ottawa Statement was thoroughly evaluated within a multidisciplinary research team, consisting amongst others of epidemiologists and ethicists. Results Patients in a CRT may also be considered as research subjects if they are indirectly affected by the studied interventions in a CRT. Second, health care workers are research subjects in CRTs but have a different moral status compared with ordinary research participants. This different status has implications for withdrawal and the choice of the primary objective. Third, modified informed consent for CRTs may be obtained when researchers can demonstrate that disclosure of the randomization process would affect the validity of a CRT. Conclusion Recommendations of the Ottawa Statement on identifying the research subject and providing informed consent can and should be refined