Background Childhood cancers affect about 350 children every year in Sweden and are life-threatening diseases. During the treatment period, situations arise that can become morally challenging for the child. When knowing children’s values and morally challenging situations in childhood cancer care, targeted ethics support could be developed and used in care. Aim To explore children’s values and moral dilemmas ​​when undergoing cancer treatment. Methods This is a qualitative study based on empirical data. The data collection was conducted through three focus (...) group interviews and six individual interviews with children between 10 and 18 years (n = 16). A content analysis methodology was used to generate themes. Children who were/have been treated for cancer at three childhood cancer centres in Sweden were invited to participate. The study was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The children’s participation was based on voluntariness and consent/assent. Findings During the analysis, five themes of values emerged: Personal relationships, Bodily ease and identity, Feeling in control and being involved, Positive distractions and Right care that is needed. Their moral dilemmas were thematized into: Should I consider others or not? Should I rest or not? and Should I refuse treatment or not? Conclusion Children undergoing cancer treatment want to have personal relationships with healthcare professionals. Their moral dilemmas were about questioning their own physical and psychological well-being against their expectations, the values of others and the treatment required. Further research is needed to understand how to deal with moral dilemmas in children undergoing cancer treatment. (shrink)

Key legislations in many countries emphasize the importance of involving children in decisions regarding their own health at a level commensurate with their age and capacities. Research is engaged in developing tools to assess capacity in children in order to facilitate their responsible involvement. These instruments, however, are usually based on the cognitive criteria for capacity assessment as defined by Appelbaum and Grisso and thus ill adapted to address the life-situation of children. The aim of this paper is to revisit (...) and critically reflect upon the current definitions of decision-making capacity. For this purpose, we propose to see capacity through the lens of essential contestability as it warns us against any reification of what it means to have capacity. Currently, capacity is often perceived of as a mental or cognitive ability which somehow resides within the person, obscuring the fact that capacity is not just an objective property which can be assessed, but always operates within a dominant cultural framework that “creates” that same capacity and defines the threshold between capable and incapable in a specific situation. Defining capacity as an essentially contested concept means using it in a questioning mode and giving space to alternative interpretations that might inform and advance the debate surrounding decision-making. (shrink)

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. (...) To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply. (shrink)

Research ethics committees (RECs) have a crucial role in protecting children in research. However, studies on REC members’ perspectives on paediatric research are scarce. We conducted a qualitative study to explore Swedish scientific REC members’ perspectives on ethical aspects in applications involving children with severe health conditions. The REC members considered promoting participation, protecting children and regulatory adherence to be central aspects. The results underscored the importance of not neglecting ill children’s rights to adapted information and participation. REC members supported (...) a contextual and holistic approach to vulnerability and risk, which considers the child’s and parents’ psychological wellbeing and the child’s integrity, both short and long term. The ethical complexity of paediatric research requires continuous ethical competence development within RECs. (shrink)

Background Research is crucial to improve treatment, survival and quality of life for children with cancer. However, recruitment of children for research raises ethical challenges. The aim of this study was to explore and describe ethical values and challenges related to the recruitment of children with cancer for research, from the perspectives and experiences of healthcare professionals in the Swedish context. Another aim was to explore their perceptions of research ethics competence in recruiting children for research. Methods An explorative qualitative (...) study using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Seven physicians and ten nurses were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis. Results The respondents’ ethical challenges and values in recruitment mainly concerned establishing relationships and trust, meeting informational needs, acknowledging vulnerability, and balancing roles and interests. Ensuring ethical competence was raised as important, and interpersonal and communicative skills were highlighted. Conclusion This study provides empirical insight into recruitment of children with cancer, from the perspectives of healthcare professionals. It also contributes to the understanding of recruitment as a relational process, where aspects of vulnerability, trust and relationship building are important, alongside meeting informational needs. The results provide knowledge on the complexities raised by paediatric research and underpin the importance of building research ethics competence to ensure that the rights and interests of children with cancer are protected in research. (shrink)

Background Genuine uncertainty on superiority of one intervention over the other is called equipoise. Physician-investigators in randomized controlled trials need equipoise at least in studies with more than minimal risks. Ideally, this equipoise is also present in patient-participants. In pediatrics, data on equipoise are lacking. We hypothesize that 1) lack of equipoise at enrolment among parents may reduce recruitment; 2) lack of equipoise during participation may reduce retention in patients assigned to a less favoured treatment-strategy. Methods We compared preferences of (...) parents/patients at enrolment, documented by a questionnaire, with preferences developed during follow-up by an interview-study to investigate equipoise of child-participants and parents in the BeSt-for-Kids-study. This trial in new-onset Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-patients consists of three strategies. One strategy comprises initial treatment with a biological disease-modifying-antirheumatic-drug, currently not standard-of-care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 parents and 7 patients, median 11 months after enrolment. Results Initially most parents and children were not in equipoise. Parents/patients who refused participation, regularly declined due to specific preferences. Many participating families preferred the biological-first-strategy. They participated to have a chance for this initial treatment, and would even consider stopping trial-participation when not randomized for it. Their conviction of superiority of the biological-first strategy was based on knowledge from internet and close relations. According to four parents, the physician-investigator preferred the biological-first-strategy, but the majority stated that she had no preferred strategy. In phase 2, preferences tended to change to the treatment actually received. Conclusions Lack of equipoise during enrolment did not reduce study recruitment, mainly due to the fact that preferred treatment was only available within the study. Still, when developing a trial it is important to evaluate whether the physicians’ research question is in line with preferences of the patient-group. By exploring so-called ‘informed patient-group’-equipoise, successful recruitment may be enhanced and bias avoided. In our study, lack of equipoise during trial-participation did not reduce retention in those assigned to a less favoured option. We observed a change for preference towards treatment actually received, possibly explained by comparable outcomes in all three arms. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungSystemmedizinische Ansätze zeichnen sich durch die Integration großer Datenmengen aus vielfältigen Datenquellen aus und führen systembiologische und medizinische Forschungsansätze mit informationswissenschaftlichen Methoden und prädiktiven Verfahren mathematischer Modellierung zusammen. Hieraus resultiert eine enge Kooperation von Ärzten und Naturwissenschaftlern, wobei insbesondere die Expertise nicht-ärztlicher Forscher zunehmend an Bedeutung für die Datenaufbereitung und -interpretation gewinnt. Aus ethischer Perspektive wirft diese Entwicklung Fragen nach der konkreten Gestaltung einer systemmedizinischen Zusammenarbeit sowie möglichen Rollenveränderungen und neuen Verantwortungszuschreibungen an Ärzte und nicht-ärztliche Forscher auf. Um diese Fragen (...) mit Blick auf die Erfahrungen und Perspektiven der beteiligten Akteursgruppen zu beleuchten, führten wir eine qualitative Interviewstudie mit Ärzten und nicht-ärztlichen Forschern aus unterschiedlichen systemmedizinischen Kontexten durch. Aus dem Interviewmaterial ließen sich zwei Konzeptionen von Systemmedizin rekonstruieren. Die erste ist durch eine eindeutige arbeitsteilige Rollentrennung zwischen Ärzten und Forschern charakterisiert: Der Forscher fungiert als Dienstleister, der Arzt als translationaler, interdisziplinär ausgerichteter Mediziner. Die zweite zeichnet sich durch eine weitreichende Aufhebung der Rollentrennung von Ärzten und Forschern aus: Die Berufsgruppen agieren als interdisziplinäres Team mit einer engen wechselseitigen inhaltlichen und methodischen Zusammenarbeit der Akteure. In beiden Konzeptionen werden Rollenkonflikte von Ärzten und Forschern deutlich, die insbesondere auf die Diskrepanz zwischen dem Arzt- und Forscherethos und die mit ihnen je verknüpften spezifischen Handlungsnormen und Ziele zurückzuführen sind. Ferner besteht mit Blick auf die dem Arzt und Forscher jeweils zukommende Verantwortung gegenüber Patienten vielfältiger normativer Klärungsbedarf, insbesondere hinsichtlich der Frage, welche Verantwortung den Akteursgruppen gerechtfertigter Weise zugeschrieben werden kann. Diesbezüglich erscheint eine Differenzierung von versorgungsnäheren und grundlagenforschungsorientierten Arbeitsfeldern angeraten. (shrink)

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. (...) To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply. (shrink)