Pediatric cancer is accompanied by many ethical challenges, particularly those related to respecting the child's opinion and parental responsibility and consent.Questionnaires were collected from 400 participants, from four equal groups: doctors, nurses, parents and medical students, from three cities in Saudi Arabia, about three problematic issues which revolve around the mandatory consent of one or both parents, the extent of a child’s assent, and the acceptable form of consent and assent.Despite the diversity of the participants' cultural backgrounds, most preferred both (...) parents to give consent, followed by either parent without differentiation between parents, which reinforced a trend towards more gender equality. The majority of participants preferred that parental consent forms be detailed enough to obtain the maximum information, while others chose medium‐size consent forms; a large majority preferred that the form seeking to obtain the assent of the child with cancer be short, reflecting their desire not to increase the burden on the child, in addition to the fact that the final decision belongs to the parents rather than the child. Most participants preferred to rely on a child's level of maturity rather than having reached a certain age so that they could give assent, while the rest considered the age of 13‐14 as a suitable age.These findings reflect an increasing ethical awareness regarding parental consent and child assent, and they can be formulated in a recommendation for a more ethical practice in the field of childhood cancer and pediatrics in general. (shrink)

Background Posthumous organ procurement is hindered by the consenting process. Several consenting systems have been proposed. There is limited information on public relative attitudes towards various consenting systems, especially in Middle Eastern/Islamic countries. Methods We surveyed 698 Saudi Adults attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary care hospital. Preference and perception of norm regarding consenting options for posthumous organ donation were explored. Participants ranked (1, most agreeable) the following, randomly-presented, options from 1 to 11: no-organ-donation, presumed consent, informed consent by donor-only, (...) informed consent by donor-or-surrogate, and mandatory choice; the last three options ± medical or financial incentive. Results Mean(SD) age was 32(9) year, 27% were males, 50% were patients’ companions, 60% had ≥ college education, and 20% and 32%, respectively, knew an organ donor or recipient. Mandated choice was among the top three choices for preference of 54% of respondents, with an overall median[25%,75%] ranking score of 3[2,6], and was preferred over donor-or-surrogate informed consent (4[2,7], p vs. 11[6,11], respectively, p = 0.002). Compared to females, males more perceived donor-or-surrogate informed consent as the norm (3[1,6] vs. 5[3,7], p vs. 8[4,9], p vs. 5[2,7], p Conclusions We conclude that: 1) most respondents were in favor of posthumous organ donation, 2) mandated choice system was the most preferred and presumed consent system was the least preferred, 3) there was no difference between preference and perception of norm in consenting systems ranking, and 4) financial (especially in females) and medical (especially in males) incentives reduced preference. (shrink)

This book is a philosophically-oriented introduction to bioethics. It offers the reader an overview of key debates in bioethics relevant to various areas including; organ retrieval, stem cell research, justice in healthcare and issues in environmental ethics, including issues surrounding food and agriculture. The book also seeks to go beyond simply describing the issues in order to provide the reader with the methodological and theoretical tools for a more comprehensive understanding of current bioethical debates. The aim of the book is (...) to present bioethics as an interdisciplinary field, to explore its close relation to other disciplines (such as law, life sciences, theology and philosophy), and to discuss the conditions under which bioethics can serve as an academically legitimate discipline that is at the same time relevant to society. As a systematic and methodologically rigorous overview, Bioethics: Methods, Theories, Domains will be of particular interest to academics and students in the disciplines of Law, Medicine, Ethics and Philosophy. (shrink)