Search

Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) is a successful public health initiative that seeks to identify serious, treatable medical conditions. The increasing use of genomic sequencing (GS) in a wide range of medical settings has reignited the discussion on whether GS can and should be integrated into NBS. Yet, the perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Australia on the ethical and practical issues associated with the implementation of genomic newborn screening (GNBS) are underexplored. To address this, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 16 Australian HCPs with clinical or policy experience in NBS and/or GS to explore their perspectives on the ethical, social, and practical issues raised by integrating GS into NBS. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. When asked whether GS should be incorporated into NBS, HCPs did not feel it was currently appropriate but there was a strong consensus it may be implemented within the next decade. However, HCPs had differing perspectives on what conditions should be included and how to best handle the volume of data generated from GNBS. Our findings have important implications for determining at what point and how genomics can be integrated into NBS. The differing views expressed amongst HCPs suggest that further research is needed to explore the reasons behind this. Importantly, our participants highlighted a potential role for genetic counselors in the implementation of GNBS on a larger scale by developing educational resources to facilitate obtaining informed consent and return of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is ongoing debate within the bioethics literature regarding to what extent (if any) it is ethically justifiable for doctors to engage in religious discussion with their patients, in cases where patients cite religious considerations as influencing their medical decision‐making. In this paper, we concede that certain forms of religious discussion between doctors and patients are morally permissible (though not necessarily morally obligatory), insofar as patients' religious beliefs may comprise an important part of their overall wellbeing and can influence their medical decisions. However, we argue that it is not morally permissible for doctors to engage in substantive religious discussion with their patients, beyond simply inquiring about the patient's values (which may include their religious values) or referring patients to a chaplain or religious figure for further discussion. In support of this claim, we put forward two key arguments which have remained relatively unaddressed in the current debate. First, we argue that it is not practical for doctors to engage in substantive religious discussion with patients, and hence it cannot be morally obligatory for them to do so. Second, we argue that, while doctors might have a professional duty to ensure that their patient's religious interests (if any) are addressed, this does not entail that doctors themselves are the ones who should directly address these interests. Along the way, we anticipate and respond to some possible objections to these two key arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In vitro gametogenesis (IVG) might offer numerous research and clinical benefits. Some potential clinical applications of IVG, such as allowing opposite‐sex couples experiencing infertility to have genetically related children, have attracted support. Others, such as enabling same‐sex reproduction and solo reproduction, have attracted significantly more criticism. In this paper, we examine how different ethical principles might help us to draw lines and distinguish between ethically desirable and undesirable uses of IVG. We discuss the alleged distinction between therapeutic and non‐therapeutic uses of assisted reproduction in the context of IVG, and show how it is both problematic to apply in practice and theoretically dubious. We then discuss how the ethical principles of reproductive justice and beneficence apply to IVG for opposite‐sex reproduction, same‐sex reproduction, and solo reproduction. We suggest that these principles generate strong reasons for the use of IVG for opposite‐sex and same‐sex reproduction, but not for solo reproduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on current approach to the accommodation of religious values and practices in public healthcare systems around the world is ad hoc, potentially discriminatory and can be harmful to patients and families. Topics include considered many countries are becoming more religiously diverse, and so a systematic approach to such accommodation is needed.

Exome sequencing (ES) is an effective method for identifying the genetic cause of hearing loss in infants diagnosed through newborn hearing screening programs. ES has the potential to be integrated into routine clinical care, yet little is known about the experiences of clinicians offering this test to families. To address this gap, clinicians involved in a clinical study using ES to identify the cause of infants' hearing loss were interviewed to explore their experiences with offering and returning results to parents. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive content analysis. Twelve clinicians participated: seven genetic counsellors, four clinical geneticists, and one paediatrician. Most clinicians were supportive of offering ES to infants with hearing loss, primarily because results may inform the child's clinical management. However, some expressed concerns, questioning the utility of this information, particularly for isolated hearing loss. Clinicians had differing views regarding the optimal time to offer ES to families; while some felt that families can manage everything at once, others recommended delaying testing until parents have come to terms with their child's diagnosis. These findings show the complexity involved in determining how ES should be offered to families following the diagnosis of a child with hearing loss, particularly with regards to when testing is suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decision of the High Court of England and Wales in Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274 (Admin) raises important questions regarding best care for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth. In this section, I describe this case, its ruling, and its implications. The ruling is underpinned by the position that puberty suppression can only be ethically and legally permissible where the young person has not only provided their assent but has also been deemed capable to provide valid consent. I challenge this position on three grounds. First, it overlooks the key ethical question of whether puberty suppression is in the individual's best interests. Second, withholding puberty suppression until the young person can consent will likely result in harmful, irreversible consequences for them. Finally, puberty suppression is not sufficiently potentially harmful to justify the additional protection offered by requiring patient consent and court authorisation. For these reasons, I argue that an assent model should govern decisions about puberty suppression for TGD youth., Competing Interests: None.