Just Policy? An Ethical Analysis of Early Intervention Policy Guidance

The value of nurse bioethicists

BACKGROUND

The field of nursing has long been concerned with ethical issues. The history of the nursing profession has a rich legacy of attention to social justice and to societal questions regarding issues of fairness, access, equity, and equality. Some nurses have found that their clinical experiences spur an interest in ethical patient care, and many are now nurse bioethicists, having pursued additional training in bioethics and related fields (e.g., psychology, sociology).

PURPOSE

The authors describe how the clinical and research experiences of nurses give them a unique voice in the field of bioethics.

RESULTS

Authors present reasons for the relative invisibility of nurse bioethicists, compared with physician, theologian, or philosopher bioethicists, as well as current efforts to increase the visibility of nurse bioethicists. They also describe four specific areas where nurse bioethicists have made and continue to make important contributions: as ethics consultants to colleagues in hospitals and other settings; as bioethics researchers or as advisers to researchers conducting trials with human subjects; as educators of trainees, patients and families, healthcare providers, and the public; and in helping to draft humane and ethical policies for the care of vulnerable patients and underserved populations.

CONCLUSION

Nurse bioethicists are central to the future goals of healthcare bringing a unique perspective to the day-to-day ethical challenges of both clinical care and research, as well as to the education of health professionals and the public.

Ethical dimensions of translational developmental neuroscience research in autism

BACKGROUND

Since the 1990s, increasing research has been devoted to the identification of biomarkers for autism to help attain more objective diagnosis; enable early prediction of prognosis; and guide individualized intervention options. Early studies focused on the identification of genetic variants associated with autism, but more recently, research has expanded to investigate neurodevelopmental markers. While ethicists have extensively discussed issues around advances in autism genomics, much less ethical scrutiny has focused on research on early neurodevelopment and on the interventions being developed as a result.

OBJECTIVES

We summarize the current state of the science on the identification of early markers for autism and its potential clinical applications, before providing an overview of the ethical issues arising from increasing understanding of children's neurodevelopment in very early life.

RESULTS

Advances in the understanding of brain and behavioral trajectories preceding later autism diagnosis raise ethical concerns around three themes: (a) New models for understanding autism; (b) Risks and benefits of early identification and intervention; and (c) Communication of early concerns to families. These ethical issues should be further investigated in research conducted in partnership with autistic people and their families.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper highlights the need for ethical scrutiny of early neurodevelopmental research in autism. Scrutiny requires expertise and methods from the basic sciences and bioethics, as well as constructive collaborations among autistic people, their parents, and autism researchers to anticipate early interventions that serve the community's interests and accommodate the varied experiences and preferences of people on the spectrum and their families.

Ethics of Implementing US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations for Childhood Obesity

Childhood obesity represents a serious and growing concern for the United States. Its negative consequences for health and well-being can be far-reaching, devastating, and intergenerational. In 2017, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a grade B recommendation for screening children and adolescents for obesity and offering or referring to comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions as indicated. However, many communities in the United States have limited access to such interventions. The USPSTF's mission is to review and grade research evidence for clinical preventive services and does not include cost or population-based operationalization and implementation logistics considerations for its recommendations. Yet implementing recommendations without considering cost and operationalization may lead to equity and access challenges. These are essential considerations, but oversight of the implementation of these recommendations is not standardized or assigned to any one agency or organization. As such, a central ethical feature inherent to the implementation of USPSTF recommendations calls for stakeholder collaborations to take on the next step beyond the establishment of evidence-based recommendations: to ensure the ethical application of such guidelines across diverse populations. Furthermore, the screening-intervention relationship inherent to this USPSTF recommendation raises ethical concerns regarding US societal norms surrounding obesity, particularly when contrasted against other screening-intervention modalities. More efforts, such as increased incentives or expansion of clinical services in low-resource areas, should be taken to facilitate this recommended intervention by expanding access to childhood obesity interventions to fulfill ethical responsibilities to equity and to ensure the right to open futures for children.