Search

Background: As routinely collected patient data have become increasingly accessible over the years, more attention has been directed at the ethics of using such data for research. Patient data is often available to researchers through patient registries that typically collect data of patients with a specific condition. While ethical guidelines for using patient data are presented frequently in the literature, it is currently unknown how patient registries implement the recommendations from these guidelines in practice and how they communicate their practices. In this project, we assessed to what extent a sample of 51 patient registries provides information about a range of ethics practices., Methods: We searched for patient registries in the resource database of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Our ethics reporting checklist was based on three sources: the Registry Evaluation and Quality Standards Tool (REQueST), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) guide for good registry practices, and a systematic review of the principles and norms related to health data sharing by Kalkman and colleagues. The checklist includes 26 questions about five ethics components: governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access., Results: We found substantial heterogeneity in the way patient registries provide information about ethics practices. Patient registries often mentioned their governance structure and any potential conflicts of interests but typically did not describe the responsibilities and rights allocated to their funders. Information about informed consent was often provided to patients, but the available documents often lacked relevant information like the benefits and risks of participation. Privacy and data protection and use-and-access policies were typically discussed but not very concretely., Conclusions: We conclude that registries typically provide information about key ethics practices such as governance, conflicts of interest, informed consent, privacy and data protection, and use-and-access procedures, but this information is often not as detailed as recommended in existing guidelines. The ethics reporting checklist we designed could be helpful for the ethical assessments of patient registries and other types of registries in the future as well as for self-assessment of registries aiming to improve their ethics practices., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Recombinant DNA technologies of the current era, most of which are comparable to past works of science fiction, have had diverse and significant impacts on social life. Among them, genetic sequencing deserves particular attention. The widespread use of genetic testing has raised numerous concerns regarding autonomy, confidentiality and privacy. In this context, the proliferation of 'gene for X' reports influences debates about the potentially beneficial or detrimental uses of genetics. While several studies have reported concerns related to the collection, storage and use of genetic data, few have considered the technical shortcomings that can affect the reliability of interpretation of sequencing data. In this essay, we will cover some of the current practices of genetic testing and safety aspects of DNA data. To evaluate the reliability of DNA data we will raise the question whether an 'overestimation' of researchers' results might reflect an 'underestimation' of our genetic make-up in terms of the limitations of the parameters necessary for the correct interpretation of genomic DNA. Following that question we will highlight the responsibility of researchers for proper science communication to avoid misleading information about genetic sequencing data., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The author declares that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Genomics is increasingly being incorporated into models of care for cancer. Understanding the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) in this domain is important for successful and equitable implementation. We aimed to identify ELSI scholarship specific to cancer control and genomics. To do this, we undertook a scoping literature review and narrative synthesis, identifying 46 articles that met inclusion criteria. Eighteen ELSI themes were developed, including (1) equity of access, which included structural barriers to testing and research, access to preventive and follow-up care, and engagement with health systems; (2) family considerations, such as an ethical obligation to disseminate relevant genomic information to at-risk family members; (3) legal considerations, including privacy and confidentiality, genetic discrimination, and the prospective duty to reclassify variants; and (4) optimizing consent processes in clinical care and research. Gaps in the literature were identified with respect to equity for people living in rural or remote areas, and how to provide ethical care within culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse communities, including First Nations peoples. Our findings suggest a need for a multidisciplinary approach to examining ELSI in cancer genomics beyond initial test indication and within the broader context of the mainstreaming of genomics in health care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Platforms on social media are increasingly used for public health research. While social media provides an exceptional opportunity to explore communication about public health topics, this practice is not without ethical dilemmas. Our aim was to identify and unfold some of these dilemmas and to suggest possible solutions and ways forward for future research., Methods: Using our own research within a closed forum for people experiencing suicidal thoughts as a case, we explored certain dilemmas and possible answers relating to whether what is to be researched falls under a public or private social media domain; we investigated avenues for obtaining access to participants in an evolving online environment; how to secure informed consent from participants; and ways of ensuring anonymity., Results: We provide recommendations and reflections that we hope will offer inspiration for researchers embarking on similar social media public health research within and beyond suicide research., Conclusions: The ethical framework commonly referred to in health research, based on confidentiality, anonymity, informed consent and doing no harm must be adjusted to be relevant for a social media context where technologies and regulations are constantly being altered., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: The impetus for policies promoting medical data sharing in China has gained significant traction. Nonetheless, the present legal and ethical framework governing the research use of medical data in China, is characterized by a more restrictive rather than permissive approach. The proportion of Chinese medical data being leveraged for scientific research still has room for improvement at present, indicating a significant untapped potential for advancing medical knowledge and improving healthcare outcomes. Building upon this research, we aim to delve deeper into the challenges researchers encounter in the sharing of medical data through focus group interviews., Methods: We conducted two focus group interviews study with researchers representing diverse disciplines to explore their perspectives on 21 June 2021 and 28 July 2021. A total of seventeen researchers willingly participated in this study, representing various professional backgrounds. Similar codes were merged. Research team discussions were also utilized to select interviewees' statements that were regarded as typical or representative., Results: The respondents demonstrated a strong understanding that medical data should not be disseminated arbitrarily, recognizing the importance of sharing data in compliance with laws. Through the interview, we found that although respondents stressed the importance of careful consideration regarding if and when this information can be responsibly released, none of the respondents raised the issue of necessitating consent from data subjects for the research use of medical data. This observation sharply contrasts with the stringent separate consent provisions for secondary data use outlined in the PIPL., Conclusions: The findings from the focus group studies shed light on researchers' barriers and ethical challenges towards medical data sharing for scientific research, highlighting their deep concern for data security and cautious approach to sharing. The key objectives aimed at facilitating and enabling the reuse of medical data encompass enhancing interoperability, harmonizing data standards, improving data quality, safeguarding privacy, ensuring informed consent, incentivizing patients, and establishing explicit regulations pertaining to data access and utilization., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethical approval and consent to participate This investigation was reviewed and approved by the Health Science Center of Peking University IRB (No IRB00001052-19013). To safeguard the privacy of the respondents, we proactively requested them to mask any identifying characteristics that could potentially lead to recognition. Moreover, all respondents provided informed consent, having received comprehensive written and oral information about the project. This information included details about the objectives and topics of the focus group interviews, the confidentiality measures in place to protect their data, the storage and use of the data for scientific papers and presentations, as well as the option to withdraw from the study at any point without providing a specific reason. Throughout the transcription process, careful consideration was given to protecting the identities of individuals, institutions, and locations involved in the study. Names were changed, and any information that posed a risk of identifying individuals was handled with utmost caution. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In their practice, pharmacists are confronted with situations that may pose ethical problems. They must make decisions based on scientific knowledge as well as the principles of bioethics., Aim: To evaluate pharmacists' attitudes towards specific ethical dilemmas., Methods: We conducted our study using a validated English questionnaire, containing 9 ethical scenarios to be rated by participants on a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was distributed via Google Forms on Facebook pages and Messenger and WhatsApp groups. The data were processed with Microsoft Excel and statistical tests were performed using SPSS version 23., Results: The participants in our study achieved 70% of the total score for all encountered situations. We found that in response to the non-maleficence scenario of "Dispensing amphetamines to a medical student," pharmacists exhibited the most ethical attitude compared to other studied situations. In general, confidentiality scenarios received the highest number of "disagree" responses, while the least ethical attitude concerned justice scenarios. We also found a significant correlation between supplementary ethics training and the dimensions of confidentiality and non-maleficence ., Conclusion: Our study, the first of its kind in Tunisia, highlighted the need to strengthen medical ethics training for pharmacists.

This paper explores public perceptions of the Hippocratic Oath (Physician's Oath) in the U.K. Results of a questionnaire administered online to 106 adults indicated that the majority were of the opinion that their primary and secondary health care doctors had taken the Oath (88% and 86% respectively). A majority thought that nurses, paramedics, psychotherapists and graduate scientists and researchers should also take some form of professional oath. Elements of the Oath which were deemed most important included that it is a sworn oath, that doctors should not harm patients, act in the best interests of patients, abide by the principles of autonomy and informed consent and maintain patient confidentiality. A significant proportion - about 20% - of the UK public felt that doctors had forgotten their Hippocratic Oath during COVID-19 lockdowns and associated vaccination programme, suggesting that recent history may have damaged the public faith in the medical profession., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The modern healthcare landscape with the emergence of video recording, has found applications in research, training, audit, quality improvement, and safety surveillance. Notably, advancements in camera technology have led to the development of smaller, lighter devices, enabling discreet usage and enhancing usability in clinical settings. Its adoption represents more than technological advancement; it entails a complex balance between improving patient care and respecting individual rights. Ethical considerations surrounding patient privacy, ownership of recordings, patient autonomy and healthcare provider responsibilities have garnered significant attention. In Malaysia, the adoption of video recordings in clinical interactions and consultations has been accepted in research, training and several medical fields. However, recording patients during clinical practice can be challenging, as there are scarce ethical guidelines for its practice. This review aims to gather and categorise the ethical challenges associated with recording videos of patients in healthcare facilities globally and identify research gaps specific to Malaysian healthcare settings. By addressing the ethical challenges globally, we can ensure the responsible and ethical use of video recording technology to enhance patient care while respecting individual rights., Materials and Methods: Articles from Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases were collected following PRISMA guidelines. Key term searches included "video recording," "ethical issues," and "patients." Inclusion criteria encompassed video and audio recording interactions between healthcare providers and patients in any clinical setting, final publications, and the English language. Exclusions were imaging or photography recording and non-clinical settings. The qualitative synthesis involved iterative reading, thematic coding analysis in Excel, and specific analysis to address the research question., Results: Initial database search, identified 363 records. After screening, a total of 22 articles were included for analysis. Five themes were identified from the selected articles: i) privacy and confidentiality, ii) informed consent, iii) beneficence and non-maleficence, iv) integrity and professionalism and v) governance, policy and legal framework. Majority of the reviewed articles concentrate on backgrounds within the fields of psychiatry, neurology and surgical-based medical specialities. The identified themes have demonstrated consistency across the majority of the articles analysed. Among the most frequently discussed themes, it's evident that ethical concerns extend beyond just the patient's realm to encompass the responsibilities of the healthcare provider (HCP) as well. Both patients and HCPs have their respective rights and responsibilities in ensuring the ethical use of video recording in clinical settings., Conclusion: In conclusion, this review has highlighted the multifaceted ethical challenges surrounding the integration of video recording in healthcare settings. While video recording offers benefits for patient care, education, and quality improvement, its adoption presents complexities. Ethical dilemmas concerning patient privacy, consent, and data management must be addressed alongside practical barriers like technological limitations and resource constraints. Collaboration among healthcare providers, policymakers, and stakeholders is crucial to navigating these challenges ethically. Future research should delve into patient perspectives, develop ethical guidelines, and assess the impact of video recording on patient outcomes. By understanding these implications, healthcare can effectively leverage video recording to improve patient care while maintaining ethical standards.

Doxxing, a type of cyberbullying, occurs when an individual's personal information is shared without consent and with malintent. Doxxing can be seen as a form of vigilantism, a way to hold others accountable for actions or opinions. Unfortunately, this form of justice may have a catastrophic impact on the victim, especially a physician. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, where physicians and healthcare providers strongly led public health advocacy efforts on social media, the frequency of doxxing and cyberbullying appears to have increased. This behavior is especially taxing on an individual's mental health, with strong negative implications on social, personal, and professional life. We discuss the ethical considerations of doxxing and avenues to protect physicians better., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare that they have no commercial or other associations that might pose a conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article explores the ethical complexities of openly-expressed medical commentary using recent cancer diagnoses within the British monarchy as illustrative cases. Specifically, it examines tensions between public interest, personal privacy, and professional standards, underlining the adverse implications of conjectural discourse, alongside the role of physicians in enhancing wider medical understanding., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Both the functions and equipment of dermatologists have increased over the past few years, some examples being cosmetic dermatology, artificial intelligence, tele-dermatology, and social media, which added to the pharmaceutical industry and cosmetic selling has become a source of bioethical conflicts. The objective of this narrative review is to identify the bioethical conflicts of everyday dermatology practice and highlight the proposed solutions. Therefore, we conducted searches across PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Also, the main Spanish and American deontological codes of physicians and dermatologists have been revised. The authors recommend declaring all conflicts of interest while respecting the patients' autonomy, confidentiality, and privacy. Cosmetic dermatology, cosmetic selling, artificial intelligence, tele-dermatology, and social media are feasible as long as the same standards of conventional dermatology are applied. Nonetheless, the deontological codes associated with these innovations need to be refurbished., (Copyright © 2024 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background:  Clinical data sharing is common and necessary for patient care, research, public health, and innovation. However, the term "data sharing" is often ambiguous in its many facets and complexities-each of which involves ethical, legal, and social issues. To our knowledge, there is no extant hierarchy of data sharing that assesses these issues., Objective:  This study aimed to develop a hierarchy explicating the risks and ethical complexities of data sharing with a particular focus on patient data privacy., Methods:  We surveyed the available peer-reviewed and gray literature and with our combined extensive experience in bioethics and medical informatics, created this hierarchy., Results:  We present six ways on how data are shared and provide a tiered Data Sharing Hierarchy (DaSH) of risks, showing increasing threats to patients' privacy, clinicians, and organizations as one progresses up the hierarchy from data sharing for direct patient care, public health and safety, scientific research, commercial purposes, complex combinations of the preceding efforts, and among networked third parties. We offer recommendations to enhance the benefits of data sharing while mitigating risks and protecting patients' interests by improving consenting; developing better policies and procedures; clarifying, simplifying, and updating regulations to include all health-related data regardless of source; expanding the scope of bioethics for information technology; and increasing ongoing monitoring and research., Conclusion:  Data sharing, while essential for patient care, is increasingly complex, opaque, and perhaps perilous for patients, clinicians, and health care institutions. Risks increase with advances in technology and with more encompassing patient data from wearables and artificial intelligence database mining. Data sharing places responsibilities on all parties: patients, clinicians, researchers, educators, risk managers, attorneys, informaticists, bioethicists, institutions, and policymakers., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Much anticipation surrounds artificial intelligence's (AI) emergence as a promising tool in health care. It offers potential to revolutionise clinical practice through assistive and autonomous operation. The high prevalence of cardiac disease globally provides an opportunity for AI technology to increase health care efficiency and improve patient outcomes. This article explores the ethical considerations necessary for safe and acceptable implantation of AI within the health care space. We aim to highlight several challenges such as data privacy, consent, sustainability, and cybersecurity. In addition, we outline the future opportunities for AI use in cardiovascular medicine. Overall, we argue that AI deployment demands robust regulation, transparent algorithms, and safeguarding of patient privacy., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Both the functions and equipment of dermatologists have increased over the past few years, some examples being cosmetic dermatology, artificial intelligence, tele-dermatology, and social media, which added to the pharmaceutical industry and cosmetic selling has become a source of bioethical conflicts. The objective of this narrative review is to identify the bioethical conflicts of everyday dermatology practice and highlight the proposed solutions. Therefore, we conducted searches across PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Also, the main Spanish and American deontological codes of physicians and dermatologists have been revised. The authors recommend declaring all conflicts of interest while respecting the patients' autonomy, confidentiality, and privacy. Cosmetic dermatology, cosmetic selling, artificial intelligence, tele-dermatology, and social media are feasible as long as the same standards of conventional dermatology are applied. Nonetheless, the deontological codes associated with these innovations need to be refurbished., (Copyright © 2024 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Innovations in wearable technology and artificial intelligence have enabled consumer devices to process and transmit data about human mental states (cognitive, affective, and conative) through what this paper refers to as "cognitive biometrics." Devices such as brain-computer interfaces, extended reality headsets, and fitness wearables offer significant benefits in health, wellness, and entertainment through the collection and processing and cognitive biometric data. However, they also pose unique risks to mental privacy due to their ability to infer sensitive information about individuals. This paper challenges the current approach to protecting individuals through legal protections for "neural data" and advocates for a more expansive legal and industry framework, as recently reflected in the draft UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Neurotechnology, to holistically address both neural and cognitive biometric data. Incorporating this broader and more inclusive approach into legislation and product design can facilitate responsible innovation while safeguarding individuals' mental privacy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests P.M. received travel reimbursement and hospitality in connection with a one-day ethics workshop conducted by Meta. N.F. and M.I. serve on the UNESCO AHEG Committee. The UNESCO draft referred to in this paper was written collectively by the AHEG Committee, to which both N.F. and M.I. contributed as members of the committee. N.F. serves as an advisor to OpenBCI and is the co-chair of the Neuroethics Working Group of the NIH., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In accordance with China's regulations on the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS, individuals diagnosed with HIV are required to disclose their medical condition when soliciting medical care in Mainland China. Empirical field investigations, however, indicate that people living with HIV (PLHIV) predominantly comply with this mandate only under conditions of absolute necessity. The ensuing conundrum, juxtaposing the imperative of privacy against the duty of disclosure, has materialised into a recurrent vicious cycle in its practical application, intensifying the intrinsic trust disparities characterising doctor-patient interactions. A meticulous scrutiny of pertinent legal precedents, coupled with in-depth field studies, reveals that the genesis of these complications can be traced back to an unforeseen metamorphosis in the legislative intent underpinning HIV/AIDS prevention and therapeutic strategies. While the initial objective was risk mitigation, the effect of enactment in real-world scenarios has significantly decreased. Owing to factors including extensive media reporting as well as prevailing public discourse, PLHIV, rather than being perceived as rights-bearing entities in legal frameworks, are increasingly relegated to the restrictive and dehumanising labels of 'HIV/AIDS'. As these individuals navigate their rights through alternative non-regulatory channels, circumventing formal legal obligations, their efficacy in actualising these rights is concurrently undermined., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using machine-generated synthetic data as a tool for advancing health science and practice, by expanding access to health data while-potentially-mitigating privacy and related ethical concerns around data sharing. While using synthetic data in this way holds promise, we argue that it also raises significant ethical, legal, and policy concerns, including persistent privacy and security problems, accuracy and reliability issues, worries about fairness and bias, and new regulatory challenges. The virtue of synthetic data is often understood to be its detachment from the data subjects whose measurement data is used to generate it. However, we argue that addressing the ethical issues synthetic data raises might require bringing data subjects back into the picture, finding ways that researchers and data subjects can be more meaningfully engaged in the construction and evaluation of datasets and in the creation of institutional safeguards that promote responsible use., (© 2024 The Hastings Center.)

Background: Patient's privacy protection is a challenging ethical issue. The complex situation of the COVID-19 pandemic was a probable predictor of breaching confidentiality. This study aimed to assess the viewpoints of COVID-19-confirmed patients, who were hospitalized, and their healthcare providers about the compliance of different aspects of patient's privacy., Methods: This cross-sectional study included 3433 COVID-19-confirmed patients who were hospitalized in Kerman, between 2020 and 2021, and about 1228 related physicians, nurses, and paraclinical staff. Two separate validated researcher-made questionnaires were developed, each including subscales for physical, informational, and spatial privacy, as well as a satisfaction rate of privacy protection. The data were analyzed using SPSS software version 26, with independent samples t test, Mann-Whitney-U, Kruskal Wallis, and Multiple Linear Regression tests at a 95% confidence interval., Results: The mean percentages of the patients' privacy scores in physical, spatial, and informational areas were significantly lower (P<0.001) than the average of the medical staff's scores in all three areas (Difference: 10.27%, 14.83%, and 4.91%, respectively). Physical and spatial privacy scores could be predicted based on the participants' classification, patients or medical staff, and sex. The mean patients' satisfaction score was 9.25% lower than the medical staff's (P<0.001). Moreover, only academic hospitals showed a statistically significant difference between the patient's satisfaction with privacy protection and medical staff's viewpoints (P<0.001)., Conclusion: Although this study indicated the benefits of protecting patients' privacy in the healthcare setting, patients' privacy scores and satisfaction were lower than their healthcare providers. The pandemic conditions might have been an obstacle to preserving patients' rights. These findings demonstrated the importance of sensitizing healthcare providers to manage these ethical challenges in a complicated critical state such as the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright: © Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences.)

Introduction The use of telephone and video consultations has vastly increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care providers in traditional clinical practices have embraced these virtual consultations as an alternative to face-to-face consultations, but there has also been a simultaneous increase in services offered directly to consumers via commercial entities. One of the main challenges in telemedicine (and the broader field of digital health) is how to conduct a meaningful ethical assessment of such services. Aim This article presents a novel framework for practical ethical analysis of direct-to-consumer virtual general practitioner consultation services in Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods First, a scoping review of academic and policy documents identified the core ethical challenges arising from virtual consultations. Second, a qualitative analysis was conducted to translate the main ethical themes and subthemes into practical questions to assess virtual general practice services. Results A total of 49 relevant documents were selected for review. The six key ethical themes related to telemedicine were: privacy, security, and confidentiality; equity; autonomy and informed consent; quality and standards of care; patient empowerment; and continuity of care. A practical ethical checklist consisting of 25 questions was developed from these themes and their subthemes. Discussion The checklist provides an accessible way of incorporating ethics into technology assessment and can be used by all relevant stakeholders, including patients, health care providers, and developers. Application of the framework contributes to improving the quality of virtual consultation services with a specific focus on ethics.

Introduction Evaluating digital health services from an ethical perspective remains one of the more difficult challenges in telemedicine and health technology assessment. We have previously developed a practical ethical checklist comprising 25 questions covering six ethical themes: privacy, security, and confidentiality; equity; autonomy and informed consent; quality and standards of care; patient empowerment; and continuity of care. The checklist makes ethical analysis more easily accessible to a broader audience, including health care providers, technology developers, and patients. Aim This project applies the previously developed practical ethical checklist to direct-to-consumer virtual primary care consultation services in Aotearoa New Zealand to conduct an ethical assessment. Method We first mapped the available services. The ethical framework was then applied to assess these services based on publicly available information. Results Our findings show that the examined virtual consultation services adequately address ethical considerations, particularly regarding patient data privacy and informed consent. We identified areas for improvement in equity, patient empowerment, and continuity of care. Discussion The application of this framework raises fundamental questions on how continuity of care, equity, and comprehensive care can be protected when virtual care becomes more ubiquitous. The checklist can help virtual consultation services identify areas of improvement and ensure they meet ethical criteria, thus contributing to quality of care. The framework may be adapted to other digital health services and tools, providing ethical guidance to technology developers, clinicians, and patients and their whānau (family).

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a major health problem, and immediate treatment is essential for improving the chances of survival. The development of technological solutions to detect out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and alert emergency responders is gaining momentum; multiple research consortia are currently developing wearable technology for this purpose. For the responsible design and implementation of this technology, it is necessary to attend to the ethical implications. This review identifies relevant ethical aspects of wearable-based out-of-hospital cardiac arrest detection according to four key principles of medical ethics. First, aspects related to beneficence concern the effectiveness of the technology. Second, nonmaleficence requires preventing psychological distress associated with wearing the device and raises questions about the desirability of screening. Third, grounded in autonomy are empowerment, the potential reidentification from continuously collected data, issues of data access, bystander privacy, and informed consent. Finally, justice concerns include the risks of algorithmic bias and unequal technology access. Based on this overview and relevant legislation, we formulate design recommendations. We suggest that key elements are device accuracy and reliability, dynamic consent, purpose limitation, and personalization. Further empirical research is needed into the perspectives of stakeholders, including people at risk of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and their next-of-kin, to achieve a successful and ethically balanced integration of this technology in society., Competing Interests: None.

The accelerated adoption of digital health technologies in the last decades has raised important ethical and safety concerns. Despite the potency and usefulness of digital health technologies, addressing safety, and ethical considerations needs to take greater prominence. This review paper focuses on ethical and safety facets, including health technology-related risks, users' safety and well-being risks, security and privacy concerns, and risks to transparency and diminished accountability associated with the utilization of digital health technologies. In order to maximize the potential of health technology benefits, awareness of safety risks, and ethical concerns should be increased, and the use of appropriate strategies and measures should be considered., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Though artificial intelligence (AI) is being widely implemented in gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology and has the potential to be paradigm shifting for clinical practice, its pitfalls must be considered along with its advantages. Currently, although the use of AI is limited in practice to supporting clinical judgment, medicine is rapidly heading toward a global environment where AI will be increasingly autonomous. Broader implementation of AI will require careful ethical considerations, specifically related to bias, privacy, and consent. Widespread use of AI raises concerns related to increasing rates of systematic errors, potentially due to bias introduced in training datasets. We propose that a central repository for collection and analysis for training and validation datasets is essential to overcoming potential biases. Since AI does not have built-in concepts of bias and equality, humans involved in AI development and implementation must ensure its ethical use and development. Moreover, ethical concerns regarding data ownership and health information privacy are likely to emerge, obviating traditional methods of obtaining patient consent that cover all possible uses of patient data. The question of liability in case of adverse events related to use of AI in GI must be addressed among the physician, the healthcare institution, and the AI developer. Though the future of AI in GI is very promising, herein we review the ethical considerations in need of additional guidance informed by community experience and collective expertise., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The rapidly growing scale and variety of biomedical data repositories raise important privacy concerns. Conventional frameworks for collecting and sharing human subject data offer limited privacy protection, often necessitating the creation of data silos. Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) promise to safeguard these data and broaden their usage by providing means to share and analyze sensitive data while protecting privacy. Here, we review prominent PETs and illustrate their role in advancing biomedicine. We describe key use cases of PETs and their latest technical advances and highlight recent applications of PETs in a range of biomedical domains. We conclude by discussing outstanding challenges and social considerations that need to be addressed to facilitate a broader adoption of PETs in biomedical data science.

Advances in biomedical data science and artificial intelligence (AI) are profoundly changing the landscape of healthcare. This article reviews the ethical issues that arise with the development of AI technologies, including threats to privacy, data security, consent, and justice, as they relate to donors of tissue and data. It also considers broader societal obligations, including the importance of assessing the unintended consequences of AI research in biomedicine. In addition, this article highlights the challenge of rapid AI development against the backdrop of disparate regulatory frameworks, calling for a global approach to address concerns around data misuse, unintended surveillance, and the equitable distribution of AI's benefits and burdens. Finally, a number of potential solutions to these ethical quandaries are offered. Namely, the merits of advocating for a collaborative, informed, and flexible regulatory approach that balances innovation with individual rights and public welfare, fostering a trustworthy AI-driven healthcare ecosystem, are discussed.

Introduction: Doctors hold a prima facie duty to respect the autonomy of their patients. This manifests as the patient's 'right' not to know when patients wish to remain unaware of medical information regarding their health, and poses ethical challenges for good medical practice. This paper explores how the emergence of digital health technologies might impact upon the patient's 'right' not to know., Method: The capabilities of digital health technologies are surveyed and ethical implications of their effects on the 'right' not to know are explored., Findings: Digital health technologies are increasingly collecting, processing and presenting medical data as clinically useful information, which simultaneously presents large opportunities for improved health outcomes while compounding the existing ethical challenges generated by the patient's 'right' not to know., Conclusion: These digital tools should be designed to include functionality that mitigates these ethical challenges, and allows the preservation of their user's autonomy with regard to the medical information they wish to learn and not learn about., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Informal mHealth is widely used by community health nurses in Ghana to extend healthcare delivery services to clients who otherwise might have been excluded from formal health systems or would experience significant barriers in their quest to access formal health services. The nurses use their private mobile phones or devices to make calls to their clients, health volunteers, colleagues or superiors. These phone calls are also reciprocal in nature. Besides, the parties exchange or share other health data and information through text messages, pictures, videos or voice clips. There are some ethical dimensions that are inherent in these practices that ought to be critically scrutinised by bioethicists., Objective: The author has argued in this paper that informal mHealth at large scale adoption in Ghana is associated with some bioethical challenges., Methods: This essay was largely based on an analysis of an empirical study published by Hampshire et al in 2021 on the use of informal mHealth methods in Ghana., Results: Widespread adoption of Informal mHealth in Ghana is associated with privacy invasion of both the nurses and their clients, breaches confidentiality of the parties, discredits the validity of informed consent processes and may predispose the nurses to some other significant aggregated harms., Conclusion: The author affirms his partial support for a formalised adoption process of informal mHealth in Ghana but has reiterated that the current ethical challenges associated with informal mHealth in Ghana cannot escape all the debilitating bioethical challenges, even if it is formalised., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Historically, epidemics have been accompanied by the concurrent emergence of stigma, prejudice, and xenophobia. This scoping review aimed to describe and map published research targeting ethical values concerning monkeypox (mpox). In addition, it aimed to understand the research gaps related to mpox associated stigma., Methods: We comprehensively searched databases (PubMed Central, PubMed Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and Google Scholar) to identify published literature concerning mpox ethical issues and stigma from May 6, 2022, to February 15, 2023. The key search terms used were "monkeypox", "ethics", "morals", "social stigma", "privacy", "confidentiality", "secrecy", "privilege", "egoism", and "metaethics". This scoping review followed the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 and was further improved by the recommendations of Levac et al. in 2010., Results: The search strategies employed in the scoping review yielded a total of 454 articles. We analyzed the sources, types, and topics of the retrieved articles/studies. The authors were able to identify 32 studies that met inclusion criteria. Six of the 32 included studies were primary research. The study revealed that the ongoing mpox outbreak is contending with a notable surge in misinformation and societal stigma. It highlights the adverse impacts of stigma and ethical concerns associated with mpox, which can negatively affect people with the disease., Conclusion: The study's findings underscore the imperative need to enhance public awareness; involve civil society; and promote collaboration among policymakers, medical communities, and social media platforms. These collective endeavors are crucial for mitigating stigma, averting human-to-human transmission, tackling racism, and dispelling misconceptions associated with the outbreak., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Artificial intelligence has burst into our lives with great vigor in recent years. We encounter it in all areas of life, as well as in the field of medicine. The article refers to medical ethics in two areas: One field is medicine based on Mega Data and the other is the chatbot or ChatGPT. These two fields basically operate in three stages: collecting data, building a logarithm and drawing conclusions and a course of action. During the data collection phase, as doctors we must not forget to preserve the autonomy and medical confidentiality of the patient. Despite all the technology and innovations, in the end, the doctor makes decisions with the cooperation of the patient and the discretion on whether to use the diagnosis, treatment and knowledge which remains in the hands of the doctor. In the realm of research in reviewing materials and writing articles, when artificial intelligence is used, caution and criticality should be exercised, since the results obtained when using artificial intelligence can be doubly misleading.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered tremendous attention in health care, and many hope that AI can enhance our health system's ability to care for people with chronic and degenerative conditions, including Parkinson's Disease (PD). This paper reports the themes and lessons derived from a qualitative study with people living with PD, family caregivers, and health care providers regarding the ethical dimensions of using AI to monitor, assess, and predict PD symptoms and progression. Thematic analysis identified ethical concerns at four intersecting levels: personal, interpersonal, professional/institutional, and societal levels. Reflecting on potential benefits of predictive algorithms that can continuously collect and process longitudinal data, participants expressed a desire for more timely, ongoing, and accurate information that could enhance management of day-to-day fluctuations and facilitate clinical and personal care as their disease progresses. Nonetheless, they voiced concerns about intersecting ethical questions around evolving illness identities, familial and professional care relationships, privacy, and data ownership/governance. The multi-layer analysis provides a helpful way to understand the ethics of using AI in monitoring and managing PD and other chronic/degenerative conditions.

Practical assessment involving patients plays a vital role in medical education, allowing students to demonstrate their clinical competencies. However, there are significant ethical concerns associated with these assessments that require careful consideration and resolution. The primary ethical concerns include violation of patient autonomy, lack of written informed consent, power dynamics, cultural differences, potential harm to patients, breach of privacy and confidentiality, discomfort to admitted patients, financial loss to patients, impact on other patients' care, and delays in workup/procedures. To address these concerns, measures such as respecting patient autonomy, obtaining written informed consent, ensuring patient safety, exploring alternative methods, providing reimbursement, resource planning, creating a supportive environment, developing cultural competency, putting in place a feedback system, prioritising patient care, and implementing ethical oversight and monitoring are recommended. The formulation of a guideline could be a crucial starting point, and it should be integrated into a broader ethical framework that encompasses education and training, ethical oversight, ongoing monitoring, and a culture that prioritises ethical conduct.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is considered the fourth industrial revolution that will change the evolution of humanity technically and relationally. Although the term has been around since 1956, it has only recently become apparent that AI can revolutionize technologies and has many applications in the medical field., Areas of Uncertainty: The ethical dilemmas posed by the use of AI in medicine revolve around issues related to informed consent, respect for confidentiality, protection of personal data, and last but not least the accuracy of the information it uses., Data Sources: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2022) using combinations of keywords, including: AI, future in medicine, and machine learning plus ethical dilemma., Ethics and Therapeutic Advances: The ethical analysis of the issues raised by AI used in medicine must mainly address nonmaleficence and beneficence, both in correlation with patient safety risks, ability versus inability to detect correct information from inadequate or even incorrect information. The development of AI tools that can support medical practice can increase people's access to medical information, to obtain a second opinion, for example, but it is also a source of concern among health care professionals and especially bioethicists about how confidentiality is maintained and how to maintain cybersecurity. Another major risk may be related to the dehumanization of the medical act, given that, at least for now, empathy and compassion are accessible only to human beings., Conclusions: AI has not yet managed to overcome certain limits, lacking moral subjectivity, empathy, the level of critical thinking is still insufficient, but no matter who will practice preventive or curative medicine in the next period, they will not be able to ignore AI, which under human control can be an important tool in medical practice., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Overall rates of opioid use are low in adolescents; however, recent increases in mortality from overdose in adolescents have outpaced increases in the general population. This article highlights the importance of expanding evidence-based treatment for adolescent opioid use, especially medication, while also addressing key ethical considerations of harm reduction practices and how application of such practices with adolescents may differ from adults. Concepts related to adolescent populations are discussed, including autonomy, confidentiality, and brain development. Application of harm reduction practices should be age appropriate, express respect for patients' autonomy, include social support, and be accompanied by broader aims to minimize adolescent initiation, escalation, and overall harm caused by opioid use., (Copyright 2024 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

The medical history underscores the significance of ethics in each advancement, with bioethics playing a pivotal role in addressing emerging ethical challenges in digital health (DH). This article examines the ethical dilemmas of innovations in DH, focusing on the healthcare system, professionals, and patients. Artificial Intelligence (AI) raises concerns such as confidentiality and algorithmic biases. Mobile applications (Apps) empower but pose challenges of access and digital literacy. Telemedicine (TM) democratizes and reduces healthcare costs but requires addressing the digital divide and interconsultation dilemmas; it necessitates high-quality standards with patient information protection and attention to equity in access. Wearables and the Internet of Things (IoT) transform healthcare but face ethical challenges like privacy and equity. 21st-century bioethics must be adaptable as DH tools demand constant review and consensus, necessitating health science faculties' preparedness for the forthcoming changes., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Publicado por Elsevier España S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Machine learning models hold great promise with medical applications, but also give rise to a series of ethical challenges. In this survey we focus on training data, model interpretability and bias and the related issues tied to privacy, autonomy, and health equity., Competing Interests: Acknowledgments: The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright ©2024 by the North Carolina Institute of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.)

AbstractDespite broad ethical consensus supporting developmentally appropriate disclosure of health information to older children and adolescents, cases in which parents and caregivers request nondisclosure continue to pose moral dilemmas for clinicians. State laws vary considerably regarding adolescents' rights to autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality, with many states not specifically addressing adolescents' right to their own healthcare information. The requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act have raised important ethical concerns for pediatricians and adolescent healthcare professionals regarding the protection of adolescent privacy and confidentiality, given requirements that chart notes and results be made readily available to patients via electronic portals. Less addressed have been the implications of the act for adolescents' access to their health information, since many healthcare systems' electronic portals are available to patients beginning at age 12, sometimes requiring that the patients themselves authorize their parents' access to the same information. In this article, we present a challenging case of protracted disagreement about an adolescent's right to honest information regarding his devastating prognosis. We then review the legal framework governing adolescents' rights to their own healthcare information, the limitations of ethics consultation to resolve such disputes, and the potential for the Cures Act's impact on electronic medical record systems to provide one form of resolution. We conclude that although parents in cases like the one presented here have the legal right to consent to medical treatment on their children's behalf, they do not have a corresponding right to direct the withholding of medical information from the patient.

Contact investigation is an evidence-based intervention of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) to protect public health by interrupting the chain of transmission. In pursuit of contact investigation, patients' MDR-TB status has to be disclosed to third parties (to the minimum necessary) for tracing the contacts. Nevertheless, disclosure to third parties often unintentionally leads the MDR-TB patients suffered from social discrimination and stigma. For this reason, patients are less inclined to reveal their MDR-TB status and becomes a significant issue in contact investigation. This issue certainly turns into a negative impact on the public interest. Tension between keeping MDR-TB status confidential and safeguarding public health arises in relation to this issue. Regarding MDR-TB management, patient compliance with treatment and contact investigation are equally important. Patients might fail to comply with anti-TB therapy and be reluctant to seek healthcare due to disclosure concerns. In order to have treatment adherence, MDRTB patients should not live through social discrimination and stigma arising from disclosure and TB team has a duty to support them as a mean of reciprocity. However, implementation of contact investigation as a public health policy can still be challenging even with promising reciprocal support to the patients because MDR-TB patients are living in different contexts and situations. There can be no straight forward settlement but an appropriate justification for each distinct context is needed to strike a balance between individual confidentiality and public interest., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Monash University.)

Although medical confidentiality is widely recognized as an essential principle in the therapeutic relationship, its systematic and coherent practice has been an ethically challenging duty upon healthcare providers due to various concerns of clinical, moral, religious, social, ethical and legal natures. Medical confidentiality can be breached to protect the patient and/or others if maintaining confidentiality causes serious harm. Healthcare professionals may encounter complicated situations whereby the divulgence of a patient's confidential information may pose a threat to one party whereas the concealment of such information may cause harm to another. After deliberating on the Islamic concept of harm (ḍarar), this paper focuses on the dual duty and conflicts of interests faced by healthcare professionals in the practice of medical confidentiality. Referring to serious infectious diseases with a special mention of AIDS, this study also provides discourse on how healthcare professionals deal with difficult scenarios of conflicts of interests and ethical dilemmas., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.)

This paper explores the security, privacy, and ethical implications of e-health data in Iran's healthcare network. A framework is proposed to ensure security and privacy in electronic health information processing across various institutions. The framework addresses aspects such as software/hardware, communication networks, patient safety, privacy, confidentiality, online health service regulations, commercial and judicial exploitation, and education/research. The study categorizes these requirements into seven main categories to safeguard health-oriented service recipients' security and privacy.

The field of dermatology is experiencing the rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI), from mobile applications (apps) for skin cancer detection to large language models like ChatGPT that can answer generalist or specialist questions about skin diagnoses. With these new applications, ethical concerns have emerged. In this scoping review, we aimed to identify the applications of AI to the field of dermatology and to understand their ethical implications. We used a multifaceted search approach, searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar for primary literature, following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidance. Our advanced query included terms related to dermatology, AI and ethical considerations. Our search yielded 202 papers. After initial screening, 68 studies were included. Thirty-two were related to clinical image analysis and raised ethical concerns for misdiagnosis, data security, privacy violations and replacement of dermatologist jobs. Seventeen discussed limited skin of colour representation in datasets leading to potential misdiagnosis in the general population. Nine articles about teledermatology raised ethical concerns, including the exacerbation of health disparities, lack of standardized regulations, informed consent for AI use and privacy challenges. Seven addressed inaccuracies in the responses of large language models. Seven examined attitudes toward and trust in AI, with most patients requesting supplemental assessment by a physician to ensure reliability and accountability. Benefits of AI integration into clinical practice include increased patient access, improved clinical decision-making, efficiency and many others. However, safeguards must be put in place to ensure the ethical application of AI., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Online research methods have grown in popularity due in part to the globalised and far-reaching nature of the internet but also linked to the Covid-19 pandemic whereby restrictions to travel and face to face contact necessitated a shift in methods of research recruitment and data collection. Ethical guidance exists to support researchers in conducting online research, however this is lacking within health fields. This scoping review aims to synthesise formal ethical guidance for applying online methods within health research as well as provide examples of where guidance has been used. A systematic search of literature was conducted, restricted to English language records between 2013 and 2022. Eligibility focused on whether the records were providing ethical guidance or recommendations, were situated or relevant to health disciplines, and involved the use or discussion of online research methods. Following exclusion of ineligible records and duplicate removal, three organisational ethical guidance and 24 research papers were charted and thematically analysed. Four key themes were identified within the guidance documents, 1) consent, 2) confidentiality and privacy, 3) protecting participants from harm and 4) protecting researchers from harm with the research papers describing additional context and understanding around these issues. The review identified that there are currently no specific guidelines aimed at health researchers, with the most cited guidance coming from broader methodological perspectives and disciplines or auxiliary fields. All guidance discussed each of the four key themes within the wider context of sensitive topics and vulnerable populations, areas and issues which are often prominent within health research thus highlighting the need for unifying guidance specific for health researchers. Further research should aim to understand better how online health studies apply ethical principles, to support in informing gaps across both research and guidance., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Harris et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has raised significant ethical concerns. In pharmacy practice, AI offers promising advances but also poses ethical challenges., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in countries from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region on 501 pharmacy professionals. A 12-item online questionnaire assessed ethical concerns related to the adoption of AI in pharmacy practice. Demographic factors associated with ethical concerns were analyzed via SPSS v.27 software using appropriate statistical tests., Results: Participants expressed concerns about patient data privacy (58.9%), cybersecurity threats (58.9%), potential job displacement (62.9%), and lack of legal regulation (67.0%). Tech-savviness and basic AI understanding were correlated with higher concern scores (p < 0.001). Ethical implications include the need for informed consent, beneficence, justice, and transparency in the use of AI., Conclusion: The findings emphasize the importance of ethical guidelines, education, and patient autonomy in adopting AI. Collaboration, data privacy, and equitable access are crucial to the responsible use of AI in pharmacy practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Digital twins have emerged as a groundbreaking concept in personalized medicine, offering immense potential to transform health care delivery and improve patient outcomes. It is important to highlight the impact of digital twins on personalized medicine across the understanding of patient health, risk assessment, clinical trials and drug development, and patient monitoring. By mirroring individual health profiles, digital twins offer unparalleled insights into patient-specific conditions, enabling more accurate risk assessments and tailored interventions. However, their application extends beyond clinical benefits, prompting significant ethical debates over data privacy, consent, and potential biases in health care. The rapid evolution of this technology necessitates a careful balancing act between innovation and ethical responsibility. As the field of personalized medicine continues to evolve, digital twins hold tremendous promise in transforming health care delivery and revolutionizing patient care. While challenges exist, the continued development and integration of digital twins hold the potential to revolutionize personalized medicine, ushering in an era of tailored treatments and improved patient well-being. Digital twins can assist in recognizing trends and indicators that might signal the presence of diseases or forecast the likelihood of developing specific medical conditions, along with the progression of such diseases. Nevertheless, the use of human digital twins gives rise to ethical dilemmas related to informed consent, data ownership, and the potential for discrimination based on health profiles. There is a critical need for robust guidelines and regulations to navigate these challenges, ensuring that the pursuit of advanced health care solutions does not compromise patient rights and well-being. This viewpoint aims to ignite a comprehensive dialogue on the responsible integration of digital twins in medicine, advocating for a future where technology serves as a cornerstone for personalized, ethical, and effective patient care., (©Alexandre Vallée. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 13.05.2024.)

Countries that abolished donor anonymity have imposed age limits for access to certain types of information by donor offspring. In the UK and the Netherlands, a debate has started on whether these age limits should be lowered or abolished all together. This article presents some arguments against lowering the age limits as a general rule for all donor children. The focus is on whether one should give a child the right to obtain the identity of the donor at an earlier age than is presently stipulated. The first argument is that there is no evidence that a change in age will increase the total well-being of the donor offspring as a group. The second argument stresses that the rights language used for the donor-conceived child isolates the child from his or her family and this is unlikely to be in the best interest of the child. Finally, lowering the age limit reintroduces the genetic father in the family and expresses the bionormative ideology that contradicts gamete donation as a practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Genetic testing has familial implications. Counsellors find themselves in (moral) conflict between medical confidentiality (towards the patient) and a potential right or even duty to warn at-risk relatives. Legal regulations vary between countries. English literature about German law is scarce. We reviewed the literature of relevant legal cases, focussing on German law, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This article aims to familiarise counsellors with their responsibilities, compare the situation between countries and point out legally unresolved areas.According to the German Genetic Diagnostics Act (Gendiagnostikgesetz) in case of an 'avoidable or treatable' genetic disorder, geneticists ought to confine themselves to the obligated advice to the patient. Whether a breach of the duty of confidentiality can be justified in exceptional cases by 'necessity as justification' for actively informing relatives at risk remains legally unclear. In case of a 'neither avoidable nor treatable' genetic disease, geneticists should also refrain from actively informing relatives as the justifiable state of emergency does not permit to break the duty of confidentiality., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Confidentiality is one of the central preconditions for clinical ethics support (CES). CES cases which generate moral questions for CES staff concerning (breaching) confidentiality of what has been discussed during CES can cause moral challenges. Currently, there seems to be no clear policy or guidance regarding how CES staff can or should deal with these moral challenges related to (not) breaching confidentiality within CES. Moral case deliberation is a specific kind of CES., Method: Based on experiences and research into MCD facilitators' needs for ethics support in this regard, we jointly developed an ethics support tool for MCD facilitators: the Confidentiality Compass. This paper describes the iterative developmental process, including our theoretical viewpoints and reflections on characteristics of CES tools in general., Results: The content and goals of the ethics support tool, which contains four elements, is described. Part A is about providing information on the concept of confidentiality in MCD, part B is a moral compass with reflective questions, part C focuses on courses of action for careful handling of moral challenges related to confidentiality. Part D contains general lessons, best practices and tips for dealing with confidentiality in future cases., Conclusions: This paper concludes with providing some lessons-learned related to developing ethics support tools and some reflections on issues of quality and normativity of ethics support tools., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

The digitization of mental health enables significant shifts in clinical practice by harnessing vast amounts of data derived from the use of apps and wearables to enhance medical research, patient care, and health system efficiency. However, this process brings forth pertinent ethical and legal risks. Ethically, concerns primarily revolve around safeguarding the privacy and confidentiality of sensitive data, alongside the transformation of the doctor-patient relationship through technological interaction. Within the regulatory realm, issues encompass the classification of these tools as medical products, ensuring normative assurance of effective protection of mental health data, and addressing potential legal risks within this domain. This article aims to provide an overarching view of this landscape, serving as a catalyst for the technological, ethical, and legal discourse necessitated by digital mental health.

Confidentiality is a foundational element of high-quality, accessible, and equitable health care. Despite strong grounding in federal and state laws, professional guidelines, and ethical standards, health care professionals and adolescent patients face a range of complexities and barriers to seeking and providing confidential care to adolescents across different settings and circumstances. The dynamic needs of adolescents, the oftentimes competing interests of key stakeholders, the rapidly evolving technological context of care, and variable health care billing and claims requirements are all important considerations in understanding how to optimize care to focus on and meet the needs of the adolescent patient. The following assessment of the evolving evidence base offers a view of the current state and best practices while pointing to numerous unmet needs and opportunities for improvement in the care experiences of youth as well as their health outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Confidentiality is an essential component of high-quality health care for adolescents and young adults and can have an impact on the health care experiences and health outcomes of youth. Federal and state laws, professional guidelines, and ethical standards provide a core framework for guidance in the implementation of confidentiality protections in clinical practice. This policy statement provides recommendations for pediatricians and other pediatric health care professionals, clinics, health systems, payers, and electronic health record developers to optimize confidentiality practices and protections for adolescents and young adults across the spectrum of care., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Biobanking-the storage of human biological samples, including tissue, blood, urine, and genetic data-raises many ethical, legal, and social issues, including confidentiality and privacy. Pediatric biobanking is more complicated, with difficulties arising because children lack capacity to consent and acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Yet given the limited availability of pediatric samples, the translational nature of biobanking presents a unique opportunity to share samples and produce clinically necessary information about pediatric development and diseases. Guidance on navigating these legal and ethical difficulties is needed for those involved in pediatric biobanking-including researchers, participants, and families, and those involved in biobank governance. This paper seeks to map the current regulatory framework governing pediatric biobanking to determine what guidance is currently offered. Regulatory mapping of current international and national guidelines on pediatric biobanking addressing the ethical, legal, and social nuances of pediatric biobanking was undertaken. This paper finds that international guidelines around biobanking are mostly for adults, and even when pediatric-specific, documents are non-binding, inconsistent, or only limited guidance is offered on a range of important issues specific to pediatric biobanks.   Conclusion: This paper shows a need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking so that research can more quickly, efficiently, and ethically be translated to useful information and treatment in pediatric care. What is Known: • Pediatric biobanking presents new opportunities to conduct valuable translational research to benefit pediatric populations. However, the storage of pediatric biological samples raises many ethical, legal and social issues-in part because child participants may be considered to lack capacity to consent but can acquire this capacity upon maturity when the research is still ongoing. Pediatric biobanks must grapple with issues of consent, confidentiality and privacy, and long-term participation regarding child participants. What is New: • Regulatory guidance on these ethical, legal, and social issues is needed for researchers, participants, and families and those involved in biobank governance. This paper identifies nationally specific and international guidance on biobanking and summarizes the guidance provided in relation to these pediatric specific issues. It finds that most guidance is non-binding and inconsistent between guidance documents and may offer only limited guidance to stakeholders. A need for consistent, comprehensive, and clear regulation on pediatric biobanking is needed at an international level to enable research., (© 2024. The Author(s).)