Volume 20, Issue 7, July 2020, Page 153-155.

During the Covid‐19 pandemic, as resources dwindled, clinicians, health care institutions, and policymakers have expressed concern about potential legal liability for following crisis standards of care (CSC) plans. Although there is no robust empirical research to demonstrate that liability protections actually influence physician behavior, we argue that limited liability protections for health care professionals who follow established CSC plans may instead be justified by reliance on the principle of reciprocity. Expecting physicians to do something they know will harm their patients (...) causes moral distress and suffering that may leave lasting scars. Limited liability shields are both appropriate and proportionate to the risk physicians are being asked to take in such circumstances. Under certain narrow circumstances, it remains unclear that the standard of care is sufficiently flexible to protect physicians from liability. Given this uncertainty, the likelihood that physicians would be sued for such an act, and their desire for such immunity, this limited protection is morally legitimate. (shrink)

Ten years ago, Megan Shinal sought the care of neurosurgeon Steven Toms for the surgical treatment of a recurrent nonmalignant tumor in the pituitary region of her brain. In their twenty-minute meeting, Shinal did not make a final decision about which surgical approach she wished to pursue. Subsequently, she spoke with Tom's physician assistant once by phone and once in person, when she signed the consent form, which did not appear to designate which surgical approach she had chosen. During the (...) operation—a total resection—Toms perforated Shinal's carotid artery, resulting in hemorrhage, stroke, brain injury, and partial blindness. The jury found that Toms had fulfilled his informed-consent obligations prior to performing the resection; however, in June 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned the decision, relying on the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act. The court found that the language of the act is unambiguous in its requirement that “a physician's duty to provide information to a patient sufficient to obtain her informed consent is non-delegable.” Presumably, this rule of nondelegation applies beyond the surgical theater to other major treatment decisions. And it is unclear whether it applies to other professionals in a subordinate position to the treating physician, such as residents and fellows. (shrink)

American history has been rife with human subjects research scandals, particularly those that involve “vulnerable” populations. State and federal laws and regulations often do not provide any special oversight mechanisms or protections to ensure the ethical and safe inclusion of cognitively impaired adults in research. At the New York State level, repeated efforts have been made to regulate research involving individuals who lack consent capacity. In January 2014, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law released its (...) Report and Recommendations for Research with Human Subjects Who Lack Consent Capacity, which represents the most recent step in a decades-long process in the state to develop oversight mechanisms that are appropriately sensitive to the fine line between protecting a vulnerable population and impeding the advancement of research. These recommendations may serve as a model for research policy in other states and at the federal level, particularly in light of shifting societal concerns and changing political winds. (shrink)

Despite existing federal and state law and regulation, new human subjects research scandals involving “vulnerable” populations continue to surface. Although existing oversight mechanisms were enacted to ensure voluntary informed consent for participants and institutional review board oversight of HSR, these laws and regulations do not provide any special oversight mechanisms or protections to ensure the ethical and safe inclusion of cognitively impaired adults. The absence of rules to ensure consistently ethical conduct of research involving adults who lack consent capacity may (...) either lead to exploitation of this vulnerable population or the dearth of important research into the broad range of diseases that impair cognition. In other words, while some institutions and investigators are conducting research with this group without guidance, others are taking an extremely conservative approach and are excluding these individuals from research. Without safeguards that are adequate and robust but not overly burdensome, conducting research involving this population is ethically and legally challenging. (shrink)

Genetic testing has led to the establishment of the concept of the “previvor”: someone who is not yet sick, but who has a genetic predisposition to disease. The previvor experience demonstrates how the practice of medicine and medical decision making is evolving to render current law and policy increasingly inapplicable to modern medical practice. The introduction of previvorship to the medical landscape raises special issues for the physician-patient relationship and the legal doctrine of informed consent. It challenges some of the (...) most basic assumptions underlying the doctrine, is representative of the doctrine’s declining utility, and is illustrative of the need to transition to a shared decision-making model. Thus, we should begin to envision a legal doctrine that supports a robust shared decision-making approach to address individual preferences and values, the increasing complexity of risk/benefit assessment, and inherent (and sometimes irreducible) uncertainty. Such an approach should emphasize a new, more expansive, and inclusive model of illness. (shrink)