Search

In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled "Experimental Pregnancy." It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit "Experimental Pregnancy" and offer two ways in which Bob's analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy's presumed exceptionalism.

OBJECTIVE Fetal tissue research has driven significant medical advances but remains publicly contentious in the United States. The views of pregnant individuals in the United States regarding the donation of fetal tissue offer an important and previously unexplored perspective on this issue. METHODS We conducted a secondary analysis of data from two separate, broader qualitative studies. Pregnant and recently pregnant individuals (N=79) from clinical sites at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Johns Hopkins University, and Massachusetts General Hospital were interviewed individually using a semi-structured guide addressing a range of issues related to infectious disease research and pregnancy, including the acceptability of fetal tissue research. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for emergent themes. RESULTS Among this sample of predominantly Black (61%), reproductive-aged pregnant and recently pregnant participants, the majority (72%) generally supported fetal tissue research. The following three themes were identified: choice, respect, and meaning. Respondents discussed the deeply personal nature of decisions surrounding fetal tissue research, emphasizing the importance of informed consent and respect for the person's emotional state when approaching for consent. The ways in which participants regarded how to respectfully handle fetal tissue also shaped views about the acceptability of donation, both for and against. For many participants, fetal tissue donation to research represented one way of ascribing meaning to pregnancy termination or loss. CONCLUSION Among this diverse sample of pregnant and recently pregnant individuals, most were supportive of fetal tissue donation for research. A better understanding of pregnant individuals' views on this topic may lead to policies and practices that are congruent with the needs and values of people facing decisions regarding the disposition of fetal remains.

While pregnant people are among those most in need of access to effective treatment and preventive drugs and vaccines, evidence to inform use of pharmaceuticals in pregnancy is sorely lacking. Recent years have seen growing recognition of the urgent need to increase responsible research in pregnancy. This chapter outlines the state of play on key issues regarding such research. First, it describes evidence gaps, their systemic causes, and their human and moral costs. Next, it addresses conditions under which pregnant people may ethically be included in studies, highlighting issues of allowable risk, consent, and abortion. Finally, it turns to the important issue of fair inclusion of pregnant participants in research, at the levels of both agenda-setting structures and individual trials. Together these considerations point to the collective responsibility of the global research community to identify and pursue research that meets the needs and honors the interests of pregnant people.

Objectives Communicating with parents about adverse birth outcomes is challenging. We sought to describe attitudes and experiences of parents and providers regarding communication about adverse newborn birth events. Methods From 2011–2012, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with parents who believed they had experienced an adverse birth-related neonatal outcome and focus groups with healthcare providers who have communicated with parents about adverse newborn birth events from three geographically diverse US academic medical centers. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis to identify key themes. Results Parents and providers described unique communication challenges around adverse neonatal outcomes in six categories: 1) High expectations for a positive delivery experience and the view that birth is a life event, not a medical encounter; 2) Powerful emotions associated with birth, amplified when an adverse event occurs; 3) Rapid changes when expectations for a normal birth take a sudden negative turn; 4) Family involvement adding complexity to communication; 5) Multiple patients and providers complicating communication dynamics with inter-professional teams seeking to coordinate information and care; and, 6) Concerns about litigation surrounding the birth experience. Strategies to educate parents and enhance communication were identified by both parents and providers. Conclusion Both parents and providers experience – and may suffer as a result of – communication challenges following adverse birth events affecting the newborn. Training and resources for this care environment are needed to meet parental, extended family, and provider expectations for communication when these events occur.

Pregnant people's exclusion from COVID-19 vaccine research highlights both the harms of excluding pregnant people from clinical trials and the growing public support for their equitable inclusion. Protectionary tendencies must be challenged for the sake of progress. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to translate recognition of an unjust paradigm into action.

Background: Since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993, focus on the equitable inclusion of women in clinical research has been ongoing. NIH's 2015 sex as a biological variable (SABV) policy aims to transform research design, analysis, and reporting in the preclinical sphere by including male and female organisms in vertebrate animal research as well as human studies. However, questions remain regarding how researchers and members of research oversight committees perceive the value and need of the SABV policy. Materials and Methods: Based on 62 interviews with animal researchers and oversight personnel, we analyze what the animal research community knows about the policy and sees as the benefits and challenges of implementation. Results: We found that the 62 interviewees disagreed about the need for the policy, with some being supportive and others questioning whether the policy is based on science or is politically motivated. There were also tensions in how interviewees conceptualized the challenges to and resources needed for implementing the SABV policy. For instance, while some thought implementation would require a significant increase in numbers of animals used for each study, others explicitly rejected this claim. Conclusions: We conclude by discussing the practical and social implications of our findings about the views of members of the animal research community regarding the SABV policy.

The increased risk of harm from COVID-19 infection in pregnancy highlights the importance of including pregnant people in COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment. Promising vaccines being developed include replication-competent platforms, which are typically contraindicated during pregnancy because of theoretical risk. However, replicating vaccines are administered in and around pregnancy, either inadvertently because of unknown pregnancy status or when recommended. The historical cases of Ebola virus, yellow fever, and rubella demonstrate that contradictory messages around the safety of live vaccines in pregnancy have critical public health costs. First, restricting study or use of replicating vaccines in pregnancy may delay or deny access to the only available protection against deadly diseases. Additionally, not vaccinating pregnant people may slow epidemic control. Finally, uncertainty and worry around the safety of live vaccines may lead to terminations of otherwise desired pregnancies after inadvertent vaccination in pregnancy. If one of the vaccines deployed to combat the current global COVID-19 pandemic is replication competent, historical cases offer important lessons for ethical and effective protection for pregnant populations.

Prenatal ultrasound use is skyrocketing despite limited evidence of improved outcomes. One factor driving this trend is the widely recognized psychological appeal of real-time fetal imaging. Meanwhile, considering imperfect safety evidence, U.S. professional guidelines dictate that prenatal ultrasound—a screening test—should be governed by expected clinical benefits—an opportunity for intervention. However, when women’s healthcare professionals themselves are pregnant, their access to ultrasound technology permits informal, personal use that may deviate from standard-of-care, e.g., for reassurance. Highlighting a poignant case wherein a pregnant obstetrician’s personal ultrasound use had unforeseen negative consequences, we explore this issue within context of professional ethics and informal medical care. We discuss how women’s health professionals’ self-care may influence and inform prenatal care at large. We advocate curtailing informal prenatal ultrasound use, but also potentially broadening accepted indications for or relaxing proscriptions against ultrasounds for patients. Further research and updated, evidence-based, ethically-sound guidelines are needed.

Introduction Despite historical exclusion, there has been recent recognition of the need to address the health of pregnant women in research on vaccines against emerging pathogens. However, pregnant women’s views and decision-making processes about vaccine research participation during infectious disease outbreaks remain underexplored. This study aims to examine women’s decision-making processes around vaccine research participation during infectious disease outbreaks. Methods We conducted qualitative semi-structured in-depth interviews with pregnant and recently pregnant women (n = 13), eliciting their views on four hypothetical Zika Virus vaccine research scenarios and probing their decision-making processes around participation. After recorded interviews were transcribed, thematic analysis was conducted based on a priori and emergent themes. Results Most women interviewed were accepting of vaccine research scenarios. Three broad themes—evidence, risk, and trust—characterized women’s decision-making processes. Women varied in how different types and levels of evidence impacted their considerations, which risks were most salient to their decision-making processes, and from whom they trusted recommendations about vaccine research participation. Exemplary quotes from each theme are presented, and lessons for vaccine development during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future outbreaks are discussed. Conclusion Some pregnant women are accepting of participation in vaccine research during infectious disease outbreaks. Incorporating their priorities into trial design may facilitate their participation and generation of evidence for this important population.

Pregnant and breastfeeding populations are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV in some settings, yet are underrepresented in clinical trials of new pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) agents. Several PrEP formulations are in development (eg, vaginal rings, long-acting injectables, and other modalities). Pregnant and breastfeeding populations are typically excluded from initial clinical trials. We identified 14 PrEP trials of novel agents in non-pregnant or non-breastfeeding populations, and six phase 1-3 trials and open label extensions among pregnant and breastfeeding populations, that are currently ongoing or complete. A framework shift is needed to consider the ethical costs of excluding pregnant and breastfeeding populations at risk for HIV in PrEP clinical trials and promote inclusion to maximise the benefits from PrEP tools in the pipeline. Research on new PrEP agents should include pregnant and breastfeeding populations to avoid delays in reaching those who could benefit from PrEP after efficacy is established.

Introduction While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co‐infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy‐specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next‐generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress. We describe the process, ethical foundations, recommendations and applications of guidance for advancing responsible inclusion of pregnant people in HIV/co‐infections research. Discussion The 26‐member international and interdisciplinary Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study (PHASES) Working Group was convened to develop ethics‐centred guidance for advancing timely, responsible HIV/co‐infections research with pregnant people. Deliberations over 3 years drew on extensive qualitative research, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation and a series of workshops. The guidance, initially issued in July 2020, highlights conceptual shifts needed in framing research with pregnant people, and articulates three ethical foundations to ground recommendations: equitable protection from drug‐related risks, timely access to biomedical advances and equitable respect for pregnant people's health interests. The guidance advances 12 specific recommendations, actionable within the current regulatory environment, addressing multiple stakeholders across drug development and post‐approval research, and organized around four themes: building capacity, supporting inclusion, achieving priority research and ensuring respect. The recommendations describe strategies towards ethically redressing the evidence gap for pregnant people around HIV and co‐infections. The guidance has informed key efforts of leading organizations working to advance needed research, and identifies further opportunities for impact by a range of stakeholder groups. Conclusions There are clear pathways towards ethical inclusion of pregnant people in the biomedical research agenda, and strong agreement across the HIV research community about the need for – and the promise of – advancing them. Those who fund, conduct, oversee and advocate for research can use the PHASES guidance to facilitate more, better and earlier evidence to optimize the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and their children.

Pregnant individuals are often excluded from research without clear justification, even when the research poses minimal risk of harm to the fetus. Little is known about institutional review board (IRB) decision-making practices when reviewing such research. We conducted a survey of current and former IRB personnel in the United States to elicit their interpretations of "minimal risk"-a formal regulatory category-and to identify factors that may influence IRB decisions to approve or disapprove research involving pregnant participants. Study results revealed some consensus among IRB members about the risk level of individual research procedures and hypothetical study vignettes. However, we uncovered important variations not only in the assessment of risk but also in the willingness of IRB members to approve minimal risk research that includes pregnant women. Based on our findings, guidance is needed to assist IRB members in characterizing risk, applying federal regulations, and appropriately ensuring the inclusion or justified exclusion of pregnant people in research.

Despite great need for improved understanding of the use of drugs and biological products in pregnancy, clinical trials in pregnancy are rare, therapeutics in pregnancy are woefully understudied, and pregnant individuals are routinely excluded as trial participants. Recently, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has signaled strong support for advancing scientific research with pregnant populations, marking a significant shift from the past. Over the last sixty years, precaution and fear have largely characterized clinical research in pregnancy, deriving in large part from a protectionist ethic that materialized after the thalidomide drug disaster. FDA reviewer Frances Kelsey courageously prevented thalidomide from being marketed in the United States, and her work guided and solidified the FDA's image as protector of the general population from unsafe and ineffective drugs. Yet, when it comes to protection, pregnant persons have been left behind, and experts refer to the "shadows of thalidomide" that hamper clinical trials in pregnancy. Drawing on analysis of Frances Kelsey's archived papers in addition to focused media coverage of Kelsey and thalidomide, we discuss the durable cultural narrative surrounding Kelsey's important work. We argue that revisiting Kelsey's legacy with attention to themes that have characterized her achievement-staying vigilant, prioritizing safety, and mitigating pharmaceutical-based harm-in fact facilitates progress toward the ethical obligation to protect pregnant people through research, toward the generation of pregnancy-specific data for evidence-based care, and toward realizing Kelsey's legacy of safeguarding pregnant people and their offspring from the harms of untested drugs.

Delaying Pregnancy during a Public Health Crisis Whether public health agencies should recommend that women avoid becoming pregnant during public health crises like Covid-19 because of potential ri...

ObjectiveTo evaluate associations between prenatal trio exome sequencing (trio-ES) and psychological outcomes among women with an anomalous pregnancy.MethodsTrio-ES study enrolling patients with major fetal anomaly and normal microarray. Women completed self-reported measures and free response interviews at two time points, pre- (1) and post- (2) sequencing. Pre-sequencing responses were compared to post-sequencing responses; post-sequencing responses were stratified by women who received trio-ES results that may explain fetal findings, secondary findings (medically actionable or carrier couple status), or negative results. Free responses were content analyzed.Results115 trios were enrolled. Of those, 41/115 (35.7%) received results from trio-ES, including 36 (31.3%) who received results that may explain the fetal phenotype. These women had greater post-sequencing distress compared to women who received negative results, including generalized distress (p=0.03) and test-related distress (p=0.2); they also had worse psychological adaptation to results (p=0.001). Genomic knowledge did not change from pre- to post-sequencing (p=0.51). Major themes from content analyses included closure, future pregnancy, altruism, anxiety, and gratitude.ConclusionsWomen show more distress after receiving trio-ES results compared to those who do not.

Postpartum contraceptive decision making is complex, and recommendations may be influenced by breastfeeding intentions. While biologically plausible, concerns about the adverse impact of hormonal contraception on breast milk production have not been supported by the clinical evidence to date. However, the data have limitations, which can lead providers with different priorities around contraception and breastfeeding to interpret the data in a way that advances their personal priorities. Discrepancies in interpretations can lead to divergent recommendations for individual women and may cause conflict. Furthermore, providers must recognize that decision making about contraception and breastfeeding takes place in complex cultural, historical and socioeconomic contexts. Implicit bias may influence a provider's counseling. Unrecognized biases toward one patient or another, or one practice or another, may influence a provider's counseling. It is crucial for providers to strive to recognize their own biases. Providers need to respectfully recognize each patient's values and preferences regarding hormonal contraception and breastfeeding. Developing a patient-centered decision tool or implementing patient-centered interview techniques specifically around breastfeeding and contraception could help to minimize provider-driven variability in care.

INTRODUCTION: As Zika virus infection during pregnancy can cause a range of congenital anomalies, pregnant women may be a target population for vaccination in future outbreaks. Their inclusion in vaccine trials is critical to ensure safe and effective vaccines in pregnancy. Though many vaccine candidates are in development, pregnant women’s willingness to participate in Zika virus vaccine research is unknown. This study aims to describe pregnant women’s attitudes towards Zika virus vaccine research participation, as well as perceived barriers to and facilitators of enrollment. METHODS: Pregnant and recently postpartum women (n=128) attending prenatal care at Massachusetts General Hospital completed surveys querying their willingness to participate in four hypothetical Zika virus vaccine trials and their motivations for participation. Demographics, information on prior Zika virus exposure, and vaccine acceptance were collected. RESULTS: Most women (77%) accepted participation in at least one hypothetical Zika virus vaccine trial, and women were significantly more likely to accept prospective enrollment in an inactivated vaccine trial compared to a live-attenuated vaccine trial (p-value

Background The pressing need to expand the biomedical HIV prevention evidence base during pregnancy is now increasingly recognized. Women’s views regarding participation in such trials and initiating PrEP while pregnant are critical to inform evolving policy and best practices aimed at responsibly expanding evidence-based access for this population. Methods We conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with reproductive-aged women in Malawi in the local language, Chichewa. Participants were HIV-negative and purposively sampled to capture a range of experience with research during pregnancy. Women’s perspectives on enrolling in three hypothetical HIV prevention trial vignettes while pregnant were explored, testing: (1) oral PrEP (Truvada) (2) a vaginal ring (dapivirine), and (3) a randomized trial comparing the two. The vignettes were read aloud to participants and a simple visual was provided. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and coded using NVivo 11. Thematic analysis informed the analytic approach. Results A majority of women accepted participation in all trials. Women’s views on research participation varied largely based on their assessment of whether participation or nonparticipation would best protect their own health and that of their offspring. Women interested in participating described power dynamics with their partner as fueling their HIV exposure concerns and highlighted health benefits of participation—principally, HIV protection and access to testing/treatment and ancillary care, and perceived potential risks of the vignettes as low. Women who were uninterested in participating highlighted potential maternal and fetal health risks of the trial, challenges of justifying prevention use to their partner, and raised some modality-specific concerns. Women also described ways their social networks, sense of altruism and adherence requirements would influence participation decisions. Conclusions The majority of participants conveyed strong interest in participating in biomedical HIV prevention research during pregnancy, largely motivated by a desire to protect themselves and their offspring. Our results are consistent with other studies that found high acceptance of HIV prevention products during pregnancy, and support the current direction of HIV research policies and practices that are increasingly aimed at protecting the health of pregnant women and their offspring through responsible research, rather than defaulting to their exclusion.

The scientific and ethical importance of including women of reproductive age in biomedical research is widely acknowledged. Concerns about preventing fetal exposure to research interventions have motivated requirements for contraception among reproductive aged women in biomedical studies-often irrespective of risks and benefits or a woman's actual potential for pregnancy, raising important questions about when such requirements are appropriate. The perspectives of women themselves on these issues are largely unexplored. We conducted 140 interviews, 70 in the U.S. and 70 in Malawi, with women either living with or at-risk for HIV, exploring their views about the practice of requiring contraception in clinical trials. A majority of women interviewed from both countries indicated overall support for the practice, with seven themes characterizing advantages and disadvantages raised: reproductive control, health effects, prevention of fetal harm, burden on women, deferral to authority, autonomy regarding enrollment and birth control method, and relationship concerns. While women in the US frequently raised prevention of fetal harm as a key advantage, many other positives noted by women in both countries were related to contraception use in general, not specific to a trial context. With regard to disadvantages, U.S. women tended to focus on biomedical risks such as side effects and impact on fertility, whereas Malawian women focused on the social risks of contraception requirements, including violations of trust in marital relations and suspicions of potential infidelity. Given the potential benefits and burdens highlighted, contraception in research should be sensitive to actual fetal risk assessments; directed where justified at optimizing effective pregnancy prevention; responsive to women's reproductive preferences; and made available as an ancillary benefit even where risk thresholds do not justify requirement-in order to facilitate trials that are both ethical and robustly oriented around the interests and lives of women who will participate in them.

Despite progress in representing various populations in clinical research, one group has been left behind: pregnant women. Though millions of pregnant women annually need to use medication, whether to treat chronic illness or prevent infectious disease, pregnant women have been systematically excluded from the social investment in clinical research required to generate evidence to inform their care. This chapter articulates three models that have been advanced for morally framing research with pregnant women: an unfettered protectionist model, in which pregnant women are categorized as a “vulnerable population” for purposes of clinical research; a model of unrestricted deference to the pregnant woman’s autonomy; and a model that construes the fetus as a pediatric research subject. Each, it is argued, is critically flawed. With lessons learned from their respective limitations, the chapter points toward ways in which research during pregnancy must be given unique consideration, and toward development of an adequate framework.

Childbirth is often understood as a paradigmatically "happy" event where good outcomes are expected and the process anticipated as a reason for celebration. Yet the narratives in this volume reflect sadness and grief, even when a healthy child is born. In this essay, I interrogate the genesis of and our relationship to grief in birth. To the extent such grief is a product of the chasm between the imagined ideal and what women experience, we may redress such grief by orienting around a more robust and woman-centered notion of the "good birth". Yet there is a way in which grief is also intrinsic to birth, and turning away from the loss that birth by its nature entails may compound the suffering of childbearing women. Beginning with the observation that the one narrative in which grief is accepted and attended to-a full term stillbirth-also stands out for the exemplary care provided, I consider the possibility that making space for grief in births, including those with good outcomes, will lead us to better ways of thinking about birth and providing care for childbearing women.

Advancing fair access to evidence-based pregnancy-related services is a critical public health priority. It is widely recognized that there are inequalities in lifesaving interventions. This chapter however addresses issues raised by services whose value or utility are contested. Using illustrative examples of prenatal genetic testing and modes of childbirth, the chapter highlights the ways in which issues of access are complicated by social and cultural ideas about what is valued; discusses contested questions about what is ethically responsible or required of patients, providers, and public health systems in these reproductive health contexts; and addresses areas of needed research and further ethical analysis. It concludes that issues of access in pregnancy-related care must attend both to broad issues of justice and access and to particular ways that pregnancy services are valued, debated, and made available to women who might—or might not—benefit from them.

OBJECTIVE Ethical and counseling challenges are expected with the introduction of prenatal whole exome sequencing. In this study, we describe specific challenges identified through the UNC-Chapel Hill Prenatal Exome Sequencing Study. METHODS Participants were a subset of women participating in the fetal exome study, which has enrolled 73 mother-father-fetus trios in pregnancies diagnosed with structural anomalies and normal standard genetic testing results. In this descriptive study, cases were reviewed by members of the research team, including a bioethicist, to identify counseling challenges. Illustrative cases were chosen by group consensus. RESULTS Four illustrative cases were identified for further analysis. Challenges included need for adequate counseling and informed consent, challenges in prenatal variant interpretation, performing prenatal diagnosis in subsequent pregnancies, inability to identify a genetic etiology, and identifying parental secondary findings. CONCLUSION Our study illustrates several challenges identified in an ongoing prenatal exome study. While genomic medicine is a powerful tool for prenatal diagnosis, it is important that clinicians understand the ethical implications and parental perceptions of this testing modality.

Background: Since the early 1990s, the HIV research agenda has prioritized to some degree the inclusion of pregnant women. However, concerns remain regarding the extent to which pregnant women's own health needs are addressed, representation in trials of HIV preventives or treatments for comorbidities, and equitable study of newer medications during pregnancy. Methods: We employed a keyword search of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify interventional HIV-related trials conducted with pregnant women between January 2001 and December 2015. Retained trials were coded according to several key variables (e.g., study endpoints, trial phase, study compound) and analyzed using information provided in the database. Results: In total, 63 trials studying use of a pharmacological compound during pregnancy were conducted across 35 countries and sponsored by 74 unique organizations, including pharmaceutical companies. Of trials analyzed, 86% (n = 54) listed maternal outcomes as a primary endpoint. More than 35% (n = 23) of trials assessed pharmacokinetic parameters of a study compound during pregnancy. Of 45 trials specifically studying HIV-related medication(s), just 4% (n = 2) focused on HIV preventives. One trial studied tuberculosis in HIV-infected pregnant women; 11 studied malaria. On average, medications were studied during pregnancy 4.4 years after licensure. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that trials with pregnant women are conducted across a range of countries and sponsors, and much progress has been made to better address pregnant women's own health needs in HIV research. However, our findings confirm other concerns, for example, lack of HIV preventives studied and the lag between medication licensure and study during pregnancy.

While the concept of conscience has broad philosophical underpinnings relating to moral judgment, agency, and discernments of right and wrong, debates in bioethics have tended to engage the concept primarily vis-à-vis rights of conscientious refusal. Here, we suggest a broader frame for thinking about claims of conscience in healthcare. Drawing on empirical findings from our research with abortion providers in North Carolina, we elucidate an empirically grounded approach to ethically justified care when healthcare providers face legal or institutional policy mandates that raise possible moral conflicts. We highlight, in particular, how providers may be motivated by matters of conscience, including relational concerns, in the active provision of certain forms of care. In so doing, we challenge the dichotomy between conscientious refusal and morally compromised action, demonstrating how providers may work within the constraints of laws or institutional policies that raise moral challenges and act in accordance with conscience.

Though many women in need of access to HIV preventive regimes are pregnant, there is a dearth of data to guide these care decisions. While oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to prevent HIV infection in numerous high-risk populations, pregnant women have been excluded from all major prospective trials. We propose for ethical examination a theoretical trial—a prospective, observational study of PrEP for pregnant women at risk for HIV in sub-Saharan Africa—highlighting an ethical tradeoff that characterizes issues faced for advancing research in pregnancy. On the one hand, an “opportunistic” study design has certain ethical advantages: as formally construed, the research activity usually begins after decisions to use PrEP during pregnancy are made in the clinical setting. This minimizes research risks and avoids ethical problems that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing PrEP to placebo would entail, particularly withholding care proven beneficial in other populations. On the other hand, observational studies yield less precise information than RCTs. This raises a broader question about the pace of research with pregnant women, as it typically takes many years after a drug’s approval for use in the general population to determine safety of the medication in pregnancy. Such delays can have the effect of making it impossible to ethically conduct an RCT with pregnant women, reducing the likelihood that the research community is able to obtain robust, pregnancy-specific evidence. While an observational cohort is potentially the most ethically and scientifically justified research design to study PrEP in pregnancy, earlier involvement of pregnant women in studies of newer preventives may lead to evidence that is more timely and robust.

Laws governing abortion provision are proliferating throughout the United States, yet little is known about how these laws affect providers. We investigated the experiences of abortion providers in North Carolina practicing under the 2011 Women's Right to Know Act, which mandates that women receive counseling with specific, state-prescribed information at least 24 hours prior to an abortion. We focus here on a subset of the data to examine one strategy by which providers worked to minimize moral conflicts generated by the counseling procedure. Drawing on Erving Goffman's work on language and social interaction, we highlight how providers communicated moral objections and layered meanings through a practice that we callWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and clinic managers who provide abortion care in North Carolina. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using an inductive, iterative analytic approach, which included reading for context, interpretive memo-writing, and focused coding.Roughly half of the participants (14/31) reported that they or the clinicians who performed the counseling in their institution routinely prefaced the counseling script with qualifiers, disclaimers, and apologies that clarified their relationship to the state-mandated content. We identified three performative functions of this practice: 1) enacting a frame shift from a medical to a legal interaction, 2) distancing the speaker from the authorial voice of the counseling script, and 3) creating emotional alignment.Prefacing state-mandated abortion counseling scripts constitutes a practical strategy providers use to balance the obligation to comply with state law with personal and professional responsibilities to provide tailored care, emotional support, and serve the patient's best interests. Our findings suggest that language constitutes a powerful resource for navigating and minimizing moral conflicts in healthcare.

The rapid spread of the Zika virus (ZIKV) has galvanized the global public health community toward development of ZIKV vaccines. The most dire consequence of ZIKV infection, Congenital ZIKV Syndrome (CZS), results from infection during pregnancy. As a consequence, pregnant women figure prominently in global concerns about ZIKV. They should also figure prominently in ZIKV vaccine development, but the way forward is not well established. Historically, the needs of pregnant women have not been adequately represented in the development of biomedical interventions, including vaccines. New products are rarely designed with the specific needs of pregnant women in mind, and for many interventions, evidence about safety and efficacy in pregnancy is limited and late in coming, often many years after licensure [1]. Investigators have also been reticent to conduct interventional biomedical research with pregnant women. There are many causes for this reticence, including misinterpretations or overly cautious interpretations of what is allowed under research regulations and international norms, as well as concerns about legal liability [2,3]. Moreover, biomedical research with pregnant women is ethically complicated. Assessments of risk and prospect for benefit must take into account the interests of both the pregnant woman and the fetus, which are usually but not always aligned. In the case of ZIKV, the interests of pregnant women and their offspring do align. Pregnant women have the deepest interest in the health of their babies, and will suffer along with their children if CZS is not averted. Nevertheless, significant questions remain about what specifically is required to ensure that the interests of pregnant women and their offspring are adequately protected and fairly taken into account in ZIKV vaccine research. Guidance is also needed on the conditions under which is it ethically acceptable, if not required, to include pregnant women in ZIKV trials. These questions are of particular urgency as the pace of vaccine development accelerates and threats to pregnant women and their offspring from new outbreaks continue [4].

Although pregnant women rely on medical interventions to treat and prevent a wide variety of health conditions, they are frequently excluded or underrepresented in clinical research. The resulting dearth of pregnancy-specific evidence to guide clinical decisionmaking routinely exposes pregnant women, and their future offspring, to risk of uncertain harms for uncertain benefits. The two legal factors regularly cited as obstacles to such research are the federal regulatory scheme and fear of liability. This article reveals a far more nuanced and complex view of the legal context. First, legal professionals may—at any time from product conception to marketing—influence decisions about research with pregnant women. Second, factors not previously articulated in the literature may prompt legal professionals to slow or halt such research. They include: financial interests, regulatory ambiguity, obstacles to risk management, and site-specific laws unrelated to research. Any efforts to promote the ethical inclusion of pregnant women in research must acknowledge the role of legal decisionmakers and address their professional concerns.

Krause and Gruber offer the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of the solution to the problems we have identified. We agree that the FDA could helpfully assist with the review of specific protocols for Zika human challenge trials (HCTs), especially given the need to update our panel's

Two critical, recurring questions can arise in many areas of research with human subjects but are poorly addressed in much existing research regulation and ethics oversight: How should research risks to “bystanders” be addressed? And how should research be evaluated when risks are substantial but not offset by direct benefit to participants, and the benefit to society (“social value”) is context-dependent? We encountered these issues while serving on a multidisciplinary, independent expert panel charged with addressing whether human challenge trials (HCTs) in which healthy volunteers would be deliberately infected with Zika virus could be ethically justified ( 1 ). Based on our experience on that panel, which concluded that there was insufficient value to justify a Zika HCT at the time of our report, we propose a new review mechanism to preemptively address issues of bystander risk and contingent social value.

Disclosing harmful medical errors to patients is a prominent component of the patient safety movement. Patients expect it and safety agencies and experts advocate its implementation. Obstetrics presents unique challenges to carrying out disclosure recommendations: childbirth is a life-changing, emotionally charged, and dynamic family event characterized by high expectations and unpredictability, and perinatal care is provided by complex ad hoc teams in a litigious area of medicine. Despite these challenges, transparent communication with parents about unexpected adverse birth outcomes remains critical. We call on clinicians and professional societies to pursue a deeper understanding of the unique challenges of disclosure in obstetrics and prepare themselves to conduct these difficult conversations well.