Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-l9twb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:56:20.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethics of Using Complementary Medicine in Pediatric Oncology Trials: Reconciling Challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Amy S. Porter  and
Eric Kodish
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medication reconciliation for pediatric oncology patientparticipants enrolled in clinical trials often reveals the use of chemical complementary medicine alongside protocol therapeutic agents. Considering the blurry delineation between clinical ethics and research ethics, this paper demonstrates how complementary medicine-related protocol violations introduce ethical questions of who should be included and excluded from clinical trials and offers recommendations on how to manage physician-patient-family interactions around these challenging issues.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 46 , Issue 1: The Future of Informed Consent in Research & Translational Medicine: A Century of Law, Ethics & Innovation , Spring 2018 , pp. 64 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rose, A. J., Fischer, S. H., and Paasche-Orlow, M. K., “Beyond Medication Reconciliation: The Correct Medication List,” JAMA 317, no. 20 (2017): 2057–2058.Google Scholar
See Rose et al., supra note 1.Google Scholar
Greenwald, J. L., Halasylamani, L., Greene, J., LaCivita, C., Stucky, E., Benjamin, B., Reid, W., Griffin, F. A., Vaida, A. J., and Williams, M. V., “Making Inpatient Medication Reconciliation Patient Centered, Clinically Relevant and Implementable: A Consensus Statement on Key Principles and Necessary First Steps,” Journal of Hospital Medicine 5, no. 8 (2010): 477–485; Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goals, January 2017, available at <https://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/npsgs.aspx>, (last accessed September 14, 2017).Google Scholar
See Rose et al., supra note 1.Google Scholar
Bishop, F. L., Prescott, P., Chan, Y. K., Saville, J., von Elm, E., and Lewith, G. T., “Prevalence of Complementary Medicine Use in Pediatric Cancer: A Systematic Review,” Pediatrics 125, no. 4 (2010): 768–776; C. Diorio, K. Salena, E. J. Ladas, C. G. Lam, G. M. Afungcwhi, F. Njuguna, and S. Marjerrison, “Traditional and Complementary Medicine Used with Curative Intent in Childhood Cancer: A Systematic Review,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer 64, no. 9 (2017); T. Magi, C. E. Kuehni, L. Torchetti, L. Wengenroth, S. Lüer, and M. Frei-Erb, “Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Children with Cancer: A Study at a Swiss University Hospital,” PLoS ONE 10, no. 12 (2015); M. A. Paisley, T. I. Kang, I. G. Isogna, and S. R. Rheingold, “Complementary Therapy Use in Pediatric Oncology Patients with Failure of Frontline Chemotherapy,” Pediatric Blood and Cancer 56, no. 7 (2011): 1088-1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Magi et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Bishop et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Diorio et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
Cantrell, M. A. and Ruble, K., “Multidisciplinary Care in Pediatric Oncology,” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare 4 (2011): 171–181.Google Scholar
See Paisley et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
Hinds, P. S., Oakes, L. L., Hicks, J., Powell, B., Srivastava, D. K., Spunt, S. L., Harper, J., Baker, J. N., West, N. K., and Furman, W. L., “‘Trying to be a Good Parent’ as Defined by Interviews with Parents Who Made Phase 1, Terminal Care and Resuscitation Decisions for Their Children,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 27, no. 35 (2009): 5979–5985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, J. H., Chiang, L. Y., and Kuo, D. J., “Inadvertently Boarding a Pirate Ship: Disease Progression in a Paediatric Patient with Relapsed Metastatic Ewing Sarcoma Receiving Treatment at a Centre for Alternative Therapy in Mexico,” British Medical Journal Case Reports (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemper, K. and Cohen, M., “Ethics Meet Complementary and Alternative Medicine: New Light on Old Principles,” Contemporary Pediatrics 21, 3 (2004): 61–72.Google Scholar
See Bishop et al., supra note 5; Paisley et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Hinds et al., supra note 11.Google Scholar
Peppercorn, J. M., Smith, T. J., Helft, P. R., Debono, D. J., Berry, S. R., Wollins, D. S., Hayes, D. M., Von Roenn, J. H., and Schnipper, L. E., “American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: Toward Individualized Care for Patients with Advanced Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 29, no. 6 (2011): 755–760.Google Scholar
Kodish, E., “Pediatric Ethics and Early-Phase Childhood Cancer Research: Conflicted Goals and the Prospect of Benefit,” Accountability in Research 10, no. 1 (2003): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, N. E., Faden, R. R., Goodman, S. N., Pronovost, P., Tunis, S., and Beauchamp, T. L., “The Research-Treatment Distinction: A Problematic Approach for Determining Which Activities Should Have Ethical Oversight,” Hastings Center Report 43, no. s1 (2013): S4–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsen, A. R., Siegler, M., and Winslade, W. J., Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine, 8th Edition (Columbus, Ohio: McGraw Hill Education, 2015): at 1.Google Scholar
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., and Grady, C., “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?” JAMA 283, no. 20 (2000): 2701–2711.Google Scholar
Lantos, J. D., “The ‘Inclusion Benefit’ in Clinical Trials,” Journal of Pediatrics 134, no. 2 (1999): 130–131.Google Scholar
See Lantos, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Sisk, B. A., DuBois, J., Kodish, E., Wolfe, J., and Feudtner, C., “Navigating Decisional Discord: The Pediatrician's Role when Child and Parents Disagree,” Pediatrics 139, no. 6 (2017): e20170234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Bishop et al., supra note 5.Google Scholar