PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L F Ross

Publications and source records attributed to L F Ross.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Ethical issues in haemophilia.

Ethical issues surrounding both the lack of global access to care as well as the implementation of advancing technologies, continue to challenge the international haemophilia community. Haemophilia is not given the priority it deserves in most developing countries. Given the heavy burdens of sickness and disease and severe resource constraints, it may not be possible to provide effective treatment to all who suffer from the various 'orphan' diseases. Nevertheless, through joint efforts, some package of effective interventions can be deployed for a significant number of those who are afflicted with 'orphan' diseases. With cost-effective utilization of limited resources, a national standard of care is possible and affordable. Gene-based diagnosis carries attendant ethical concerns whether for clinical testing or for research purposes, even as the list of its potential benefits to the haemophilia community grows rapidly. As large-scale genetic sequencing becomes quicker and cheaper, moving from the research to the clinic, we will face decisions about the implementation of prenatal, neonatal and other screening programs. Such debates will require input from not just the health care professionals but from all stakeholders in the haemophilia community. Finally, long-term therapeutic success gene transfer in small and large animal models raises the question of when and in which patient population the novel therapeutic approach should first be studied in humans with haemophilia. Although gene therapy represents a worthy goal, the central question for the haemophilia community should be whether it wishes to volunteer itself as a model for a much broader set of innovations.

Adult↗

Attitudes of minority patients with end-stage renal disease regarding ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges.

A few transplant centers in the United States have implemented list-paired exchange programs that include both ABO-compatible and ABO-incompatible living-donor recipients. ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges raise ethical concerns because they increase the total number of organs available but increase the waiting time for wait-list candidates of blood type O. In this manuscript, we explore attitudes of a convenience sample of minority patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) regarding living paired exchanges, ABO-compatible and ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges and ABO-incompatible direct transplants. Data from 87 minority respondents were analyzed. Eighty-seven (100%) supported living paired exchanges and ABO-compatible list-paired exchanges. In contrast, only 50 of 85 (59%) respondents supported ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges (p < 0.001), including half (12 of 24) of those with blood type O. Subjects were asked how much additional time it would be fair to ask wait-list candidates of blood type O to wait to implement ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges. Forty percent (35 of 87) responded 'no additional time' and another 10% (9 of 87) responded 'one month or shorter'. Minority dialysis patients hold mixed opinions about the fairness of ABO-incompatible list-paired exchanges. If our findings are confirmed in a more diverse randomly selected sample, then the UNOS variances that permit these exchanges should be reconsidered.

ABO Blood-Group System↗

Attitudes of healthcare professionals and parents regarding genetic testing for violent traits in childhood.

OBJECTIVES: Although no genetic tests for violent behaviour are currently available, research is ongoing to isolate genes related to a propensity for violence. We explored the attitudes of parents and healthcare professionals toward behavioural genetic testing for violence. DESIGN: The attitudes of healthcare professionals and the lay public about genetic testing of children were elicited for a range of conditions through interviews with healthcare professionals and focus groups with parents. All participants were informed that behavioural genetic testing was the only hypothetical genetic test in our script and it was presented as the last condition. PARTICIPANTS: The healthcare professionals included both genetic professionals and paediatricians. Focus group participants were recruited through various community institutions in the southside of Chicago and nearby suburbs. RESULTS: The healthcare professionals tended to medicalise behavioural genetics, and were opposed to testing unless treatment was available. They were also uniformly concerned about the potential harms of this information, including unintentional adverse effects from environmental changes. In contrast, parents wanted genetic testing for behavioural traits to be available even in the absence of proved medical treatments. Not all parents wanted to test their own children, and some parents were concerned about self-fulfilling prophecies. Some parents, however, felt the information was important for their understanding, and could be used to support environmental changes. CONCLUSIONS: While healthcare professionals medicalised behavioural genetics, parents focused on environmental causes and influences. Consequently, healthcare professionals do not want to offer testing if there is no clear treatment, while parents may want this information to shape environmental influences.

Attitude↗

Are doctors altruistic?

There is a growing belief in the US that medicine is an altruistic profession, and that physicians display altruism in their daily work. We argue that one of the most fundamental features of medical professionalism is a fiduciary responsibility to patients, which implies a duty or obligation to act in patients' best medical interests. The term that best captures this sense of obligation is "beneficence", which contrasts with "altruism" because the latter act is supererogatory and is beyond obligation. On the other hand, we offer several examples in which patients act altruistically. If it is patients and not the doctors who are altruistic, then the patients are the gift-bearers and to that extent doctors owe them gratitude and respect for their many contributions to medicine. Recognising this might help us better understand the moral significance of the doctor-patient relationship in modern medicine.

Altruism↗

The ethics of preadoption genetic testing.

Developments in genetic technologies have greatly increased our ability to test for a wide variety of genetic disorders in children. These developments raise important ethical questions about the proper use of genetic testing. One context, in particular, where these questions have arisen is that of preadoption genetic testing. This article examines the current consensus view recently advanced by the American College of Medical Genetics and The American Society of Human Genetics on when pediatric testing is ethically permissible. We argue that the consensus view does not adequately recognize the special ethical responsibilities that arise in the preadoption context. Once these special ethical responsibilities are identified, they provide a compelling argument to revise the current standards to permit more preadoption genetic testing than is currently recommended.

Adoption↗

Primum non nocere: avoiding harm to vulnerable wait list candidates in an indirect kidney exchange.

BACKGROUND: One proposal to increase kidney transplantation is to exchange kidneys between pairs of ABO-incompatible (or cross-match-incompatible) living donors and their recipients. One variation that has greater potential exchanges living donor kidneys for cadaveric donor kidneys (indirect exchanges). A primary concern with indirect exchanges is the potential to disadvantage blood group O wait list candidates. Using wait list modeling, we examine whether this proposal would disadvantage cadaveric kidney blood group O wait list candidates, and present an approach for neutralizing these negative effects. METHODS: A probability model estimated the total number and blood type frequencies of donor-recipient pairs that would participate in indirect exchanges. A supply-to-demand model for the cadaveric kidney wait list estimated the mean wait time under different allocation policies and donor selection mechanisms for candidates on the wait list classified according to the candidates' race and blood type. RESULTS: Indirect exchanges will reduce the mean wait time for cadaveric kidney wait list candidates. The mean wait time of blood group O cadaveric kidney wait list candidates increases when the participating living donors self-select and when kidney allocation is determined by efficiency. This is neutralized when the transplant team preferentially selects blood group O living donors and cadaveric kidney allocation is determined by need. CONCLUSION: Indirect exchange programs will significantly shorten the wait times for cadaveric kidney wait list candidates. The wait times of blood group O candidates will not be affected adversely if blood group O living donors are selected preferentially and if allocation is based on need.

ABO Blood-Group System↗

Ethical issues in increasing living kidney donations by expanding kidney paired exchange programs.

INTRODUCTION: In 1997, Ross et al. proposed to increase the supply of living kidney donations by using kidneys from living ABO-incompatible donors through an exchange arrangement between two living kidney donor-recipient pairs. Although many transplant centers are exploring this option, only a small fraction of potential donor-recipient pairs are eligible for an exchange on the basis of ABO incompatibility. In this article, we explore three variations that have potentially great clinical relevance. METHODS: The three potential variations discussed are: (1) altruistically unbalanced living donor-recipient exchanges; (2) an indirect exchange (an exchange between a living donor-recipient pair with a cadaveric donor-recipient pair) on the basis of a positive crossmatch; and (3) an indirect exchange on the basis of ABO incompatibility. DISCUSSION: The goal of kidney paired exchange programs is to increase the supply of kidneys available for transplantation ethically. We acknowledge that all exchanges increase the potential for coercion, and we currently reject the proposal of altruistically unbalanced exchanges because of the potential for coercion. However, we believe that voluntary consent can be achieved for indirect exchanges. The indirect ABO-compatible exchange creates no new ethical concerns to our original living paired exchange program and we support its implementation. The indirect ABO-incompatible exchange does create a new ethical concern because it may increase the vulnerability of O blood group recipients. If mechanisms can be developed to avoid increasing the waiting time for blood group O recipients, we would support the implementation of the indirect ABO-incompatible exchange.

ABO Blood-Group System↗