Weisswinters3631

We also examine ethical challenges in clinical research, in children and more broadly. While not an exhaustive exploration of the myriad ethical issues one might encounter in pediatric cancer medicine and clinical trials, this chapter provides readers with a foundation for further reading.LDLT covers all standard indications for liver transplantation, and the results are similar or even better than for standard DDLT. Due to the donor shortage and long waiting time, LDLT has become a relevant option for patients with liver tumors, provided the expected five-year survival rate is comparable to that of patients receiving a DDLT. Nowadays, LDLT offers the possibility to extend the standard morphometric selection by considering the biological parameters. In the setting of LDLT, we are not only faced with surgical morbidity in the donor, but long-term non-medical problems like psychological complications and financial burden also have to be considered. On the other hand, the benefits to the donor are mainly social and psychological. In LDLT, the donor's altruism is the fundamental ethical principle and it is based on the principles of (1) beneficence (doing good), (2) non-maleficence (avoiding harm), (3) respect for autonomy, and (4) respect for justice (promoting fairness). On top of that, the concept of double equipoise of living organ donation evaluates the relationship between the recipient's need, the donor's risk, and the recipient's outcome. It considers each donor-recipient pair as a unit, analyzing whether the specific recipient's benefit justifies the specific donor's risk in particular oncologic indications. In this light, it is essential to seek adequate informed consent focused on risk, benefits and outcome benefits of both donor and recipient supported by an independent living donor advocate. selleck Finally, the transplant team must protect donors from donation if harm does not justify the expected benefit to the recipient.Medicines, including those intended for the treatment of cancer, are tightly regulated. Such regulation, historically linked to disasters due to unsafe medicines, evolved to cover all aspects of research around the quality, safety and efficacy of candidate medicines. This chapter intends to give an introduction on what regulators do and where the ethical foundations for regulating medicines might be searched. Some specific dilemmas will be explored, such as (i) whether at all, and if so subject to which conditions, research on animals is justified; (ii) what to do when potentially useful data on a medicine were collected unethically; (iii) which additional ethical challenges are posed by the fact that regulators have to make decisions on a medicine under uncertainty; and (iv) how to account for patients' preferences (and their heterogeneity) in regulatory decision-making. An overview of emerging topics such as use of healthcare data and open science is also proposed. While not intending to cover all arguments in the complex conversation around the regulation of medicines for cancer (let alone, around the regulation of medicines in general), this chapter aims to give a basis for further reading.Among the primary function of the media are conveying personal understanding and expanding the subjective knowledge of the recipient citizen. A particular challenge arising during this process is the mediation of medical knowledge. In addition to pure factual knowledge, it often involves subjective experiences, hopes and wishes. One example of this is media reports about cancer therapies. As a result of widespread media coverage since 2017, the public is under the impression that methadone is a promising treatment for cancer. This chapter analyzes the part played by the media and the ethical debate. The ethical issues that arise concern good scientific practice, patient autonomy and the media coverage of methadone. We conclude that, according to the current state of research, the promotion of methadone as a cure for cancer is ethically unacceptable. In this case the media are not fulfilling their task of imparting knowledge, because they are not communicating the current state of research or the associated ethical questions.In recommending and offering screening, health services make a health claim ('it's good for you'). This article considers ethical aspects of establishing the case for cancer screening, building a service programme, monitoring its operation, improving its quality and integrating it with medical progress. The value of (first) screening is derived as a function of key parameters prevalence of the target lesion in the detectable pre-clinical phase, the validity of the test and the respective net utilities or values attributed to four health states-true positives, false positives, false negatives and true negatives. Decision makers as diverse as public regulatory agencies, medical associations, health insurance funds or individual screenees can legitimately come up with different values even when presented with the same evidence base. The main intended benefit of screening is the reduction of cause-specific mortality. All-cause mortality is not measurably affected. Overdiagnosis and false-positive tests with their sequelae are the main harms. Harms and benefits accrue to distinct individuals. Hence the health claim is an invitation to a lottery with benefits for few and harms to many, a violation of the non-maleficence principle. While a public decision maker may still propose a justified screening programme, respect for individual rights and values requires preference-sensitive, autonomy-enhancing educational materials-even at the expense of programme effectiveness. Opt-in recommendations and more 'consumer-oriented' qualitative research are needed.The expansion of genetic diagnostic potential in the direction of future contingencies (risks) creates temptations and compulsions for timely knowledge and responsible-sometimes radical-prevention. In the area of mamma carcinoma, the 'Angelina Jolie effect' has not only been a media topic but has had real consequences. The undisputed right to knowledge is increasingly taking on the character of a general recommendation or even norm for society as a whole, regardless of the possibly toxic consequences of discovering a predisposition. In an "enlightened knowledge society" in which health and illness increasingly "appear as products of our own actions" (Giovanni Maio), not wanting to know is difficult; thus, it is all the more significant that this concept has found widespread recognition in current law. Its legal practical implementation, however, presents several questions that have not yet been fully clarified, for example in connection with incidental medical findings or family members affected as third parties.