Bariatric surgery, ethical obligation, and the life cycle of medical innovation

Conceptualising Surgical Innovation: An Eliminativist Proposal

Improving surgical interventions is key to improving outcomes. Ensuring the safe and transparent translation of such improvements is essential. Evaluation and governance initiatives, including the IDEAL framework and the Macquarie Surgical Innovation Identification Tool have begun to address this. Yet without a definition of innovation that allows non-surgeons to identify when it is occurring, these initiatives are of limited value. A definition seems elusive, so we undertook a conceptual study of surgical innovation. This indicated common conceptual areas in discussions of (surgical) innovation, that we categorised alliteratively under the themes of "purpose" (about drivers of innovation), "place" (about contexts of innovation), "process" (about differentiating innovation), "product" (about tangible and intangible results of innovation) and "person" (about personal factors and viewpoint). These conceptual areas are used in varying-sometimes contradictory-ways in different discussions. Highlighting these conceptual areas of surgical innovation may be useful in clarifying what should be reported in registries of innovation. However our wider conclusion was that the term "innovation" carries too much conceptual baggage to inform normative inquiry about surgical practice. Instead, we propose elimination of the term "innovation" from serious discourse aimed at evaluation and regulation of surgery. In our view researchers, philosophers and policy-makers should consider what it is about surgical activity that needs attention and develop robust definitions to identify these areas: for our own focus on transparency and safety, this means finding criteria that can objectively identify certain risk profiles during the development of surgery.

Ethics Oversight Mechanisms for Surgical Innovation: A Systematic and Comparative Review of Arguments

Surgical innovation typically falls under the purview of neither conventional clinical ethics nor research ethics. Due to a lack of oversight for surgical innovation-combined with a potential for significant risk-a wide range of arguments has been advanced in the literature to support or undermine various oversight mechanisms. To scrutinize the argumentation surrounding oversight options, we conducted a systematic review of published arguments. We found that the arguments are typically grounded in common sense and speculation instead of evidence. Presently, the justification or superiority for any single oversight mechanism for surgical innovation cannot be established convincingly. We suggest ways to improve the argument-based literature and discuss the value of systematic reviews of arguments and reasons.

Disclosure, consent, and the exercise of patient autonomy in surgical innovation: a systematic content analysis of the conceptual literature

The classification of surgical innovation as clinical care, research, or as third distinct type of activity creates ambiguity which impacts standards for disclosure and informed consent. We conducted a systematic review of the conceptual literature to identify positions expressed about consent and disclosure, as well as major tension points associated with this issue. Literature overwhelmingly favors special consent and disclosure. Four major tension points were identified: the use of biasing/biased terminology to characterize innovation; patient vulnerability; the relationship between surgeon-innovator and patient; and practices and associated gaps related to consent and disclosure. Recommendations often focused on the informed consent process.

Ethical issues in the psychosocial assessment of bariatric surgery candidates

Psychosocial evaluation is recommended prior to bariatric surgery. Practice guidelines have been published on assessment methods for bariatric surgery candidates, but they have not emphasized ethical issues with this population. This review outlines ethical and professional considerations for behavioral healthcare providers who conduct pre-surgical assessments of bariatric surgery candidates by merging ethical principles for mental health professionals with current practices in pre-surgical assessments. Issues discussed include the following: (a) establishing and maintaining competence, (b) obtaining informed consent, (c) respecting confidentiality, (d) avoiding bias and discrimination, (e) avoiding and addressing dual roles, (f) selecting and using psychological tests, and (g) acknowledging limitations of psychosocial assessments.