Early diagnosis and successful long-term management of a rare, severe lysosomal acid lipase deficiency/Wolman disease patient: Infancy to age five.

Background: This report describes a unique case of long-term survival of a young girl who was diagnosed with severe, rapidly progressive lysosomal acid lipase deficiency (LAL-D; historically "Wolman disease") at three months of age and began receiving therapeutic interventions at four months of age. This disease involves rapidly progressive multisystemic impairments and limited survival (6-12 months) without treatment. Methods: Case report taking into account clinical aspects and patient management including a semi-structured interview with the main family caregiver. Results: Presentation at two months of age: severe malnutrition and chronic diarrhea; hypoalbuminemia; low iron, vitamin A, and vitamin D levels; high triglyceride levels; profound anemia; thrombocytopenia; adrenal calcifications; and mild hepatosplenomegaly. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with sebelipase alfa, parenteral nutrition, and a low-fat diet began at age four months. The patient has received sebelipase alfa for >5 years with good tolerability and is thriving, with a body mass index of 16.35 kg/m2 (80th percentile) despite a stature delay (height <3rd percentile), and mild developmental delay. Optimal medical management requires that family caregivers and health professionals have the knowledge and skills to provide appropriate care and supports multidisciplinary teams through transfer of knowledge to all stakeholders. Effective coordination of services and activities related to child health and development, including navigation of administrative and financial barriers, is also imperative. Conclusions: Formerly fatal in untreated infants, severe LAL-D, when diagnosed early, can be promptly and effectively treated by combining sebelipase alfa ERT, modified diet, involvement of family caregivers, and multidisciplinary team collaboration.

Reproductive outsourcing: an empirical ethics account of cross-border reproductive care in Canada.

Cross-border reproductive care (CBRC) can be defined as the movement from one jurisdiction to another for medically assisted reproduction (MAR). CBRC raises many ethical concerns that have been addressed extensively. However, the conclusions are still based on scarce evidence even considering the global scale of CBRC. Empirical ethics appears as a way to foster this ethical reflection on CBRC while attuning it with the experiences of its main actors. To better understand the 'in and out' situation of CBRC in Canada, we conducted an ethnographic study taking a 'critically applied ethics' approach. This article presents a part of the findings of this research, obtained by data triangulation from qualitative analysis of pertinent literature, participant observation in two Canadian fertility clinics and 40 semidirected interviews. Based on participants' perceptions, four themes emerged: (1) inconsistencies of the Canadian legal framework; (2) autonomy and the necessity to resort to CBRC; (3) safety and the management of CBRC individual risks; and (4) justice and solidarity. The interaction between these four themes highlights the problematic of 'reproductive outsourcing' that characterised the Canadian situation, a system where the controversial aspects of MAR are knowingly pushed outside the borders.

[BIOETHICS FACED WITH SOCIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY, THE IMPACT OF THE MEANING GIVEN TO AN UNFINISHED CONCEPT]. / LA BIOÉTHIQUE À L'ÉPREUVE DE LA DIVERSITÉ SOCIOCULTURELLE, LA PORTÉE DU SENS DONNÉ À UN CONCEPT INACHEVÉ.

At a time in which the ethical awareness towards socio-cultural diversity is a necessity, it seems of paramount importance to explore what is meant by bioethics. Without being exhaustive, this paper suggests to scrutinize the key defnitions of bioethics, considering their evolution over time as well as their convergence with anthropology. Starting with its global and its restricted definitions, this article examines certain differences or definitional imprecisions in the light of the concepts used by bioethicists and anthropologists in their conception of bioethics. While this exercise shows the pertinence of the conceptual tools proposed by anthropology to facilitate the cultural diversity's integration into bioethics, it ultimately challenges an anthropological approach that has been unable to mainstream this knowledge into the definition of bioethics.

[BETWEEN USAGE AND POLEMIC, AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF CLARIFYING THE TERMINOLOGY FOR PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS]. / ENTRE USAGES ET POLÉMIQUES, UN ARGUMENT EN FAVEUR D'UNE CLARIFICATION TERMINOLOGIQUE POUR LE DIAGNOSTIC PRÉIMPLANTATOIRE.

Over 30 years ago, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was developed to help couples at risk of transmitting a serious genetic disease to their offspring. Today, the range of medical and non-medical uses of PGD has expanded considerably and some raise much controversy. This is the case, for example, with In-Vitro Fertilization to select embryos as 'saviour siblings' or to screen for susceptibility and predisposition to late onset diseases or conditions of variable penetrance. The situation is even more problematic in the case of sex selection or selection of traits that are culturally valued or discredited (such as deafness, behavioral traits, or height). The debate surrounding PGD has been employing terms to describe these particular uses that have contributed to a focus on the negative effects, thus preventing a distinction between the abuses and the benefits of this reproductive technology. In this context, this paper proposes a terminological clarification that would allow distinguishing medical and non-medical use and, therefore, the issues relevant to each. A more accurate and less generic nomenclature could prevent a conflation of different levels of ethical, clinical and social issues under the single term 'PGD'. For the vast majority of medical uses, we propose to keep: 'preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)', which emphasizes that it is a genetic diagnosis. For non-medical uses, we suggest: 'preimplantation genetic trait selection (PGTS)'.

Strengths and pitfalls of Canadian gamete and embryo donor registries: searching for beneficent solutions.

For the gamete and embryo donation community, it is well recognized that the implementation of a gamete and embryo donor registry (GEDR) represents a good initiative to ensure the best possible health conditions for donor-conceived individuals. Be they national, institutional or independent, GEDR can play a major role in the transmission of health-related genetic and medical information. However, from a bioethical analysis standpoint, GEDR raise many questions regarding the extent of their beneficent nature. Based on the recent Canadian GEDR aborted attempt, this article will focus on bioethical issues and paradoxes that can impact the wellbeing of donor-conceived individuals, half-siblings, donors and parents. On one hand, the implementation of a GEDR can be ethically justified as a beneficent action towards lessening harm associated with the transmission of hereditary disease and increasing the effectiveness of preventive and therapeutic approaches. On the other hand, examined through the concept of nonpaternalistic beneficence, GEDR challenge us to recognize beneficiaries' free agency, as well as the importance to transmit reliable and pertinent information. Ultimately, beyond an individualistic application of the principle of beneficence, socioethics invite us to consider consistency with societal values as a prerequisite for achieving a common good. Because the issue of whether or not to protect the donor's anonymity occupies the forefront of the discussion surrounding gamete and embryo donation, there is less interest in other initiatives, which may be implemented to ensure the best possible medical and psychosocial conditions for donor-conceived individuals. In this article, we propose a bioethical analysis of the use of gamete and embryo donor registries (GEDR) from the angle of the principle of beneficence. More specifically, we will concentrate on the Canadian situation regarding GEDR. We will look at the strengths and pitfalls of this mechanism and suggest a solution to maximize the benefits of a GEDR. Many have suggested that such an initiative could have a beneficial impact on the wellbeing of donor-conceived individuals, half-siblings, donors and parents, by ensuring the constant flow of health-related medical and genetic information. As self-evident as the social acceptability of a GEDR may seem, we wish to show the limitations of the benefits that a registry is supposed to provide. We argue that a GEDR has to do more than simply transmit health-related information between parties. It also has to be based on pertinent and reliable data, be useful for health promotion and recognize beneficiaries' free agency. Ultimately, the implementation of a GEDR has to take into consideration wider social values.

Differences between selective termination of pregnancy and fetal reduction in multiple pregnancy: a narrative review.

Although selective termination of pregnancy and fetal reduction in multiple pregnancy both involve the termination in utero of the development of live fetuses, these two procedures are different in several aspects. Nevertheless, several authors tend to amalgamate and confuse their psychosocial consequences and the ethical issues they raise. Therefore, this narrative review, derived from a comparative analysis of 91 articles, shines a light on these amalgamations and confusions, as well as on the medical, contextual, experiential and ethical differences specific to selective termination and fetal reduction.

Neurofibromatosis type 1 and the "elephant man's" disease: the confusion persists: an ethnographic study.

BACKGROUND: In 1986, two Canadian geneticists had demonstrated that Joseph Merrick, better known as the Elephant Man, suffered from the Proteus syndrome and not from neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), as was alleged by dermatologist Parkes in 1909. Despite this and although the two diseases differ at several levels: prevalence, diagnostic criteria, clinical manifestations and transmission, the confusion between NF1 and the "elephant man's" disease continues in medical and social representations by current linguistic usage, and in some media reports. With this article, we want to 1) document the persistence and extent of this fallacy, 2) identify certain critical factors that contribute to its persistence, and 3) evaluate its impact on the health and well being of patients with NF1 and their family members. METHODOLOGY: Participant observation in the course of an ethnographic study on intergenerational dialogue between individuals with neurofibromatosis and their parents - Analysis of the scientific literature and of pinpoint articles in the print and online news media. FINDINGS: Our findings show that because physicians have little knowledge about NF1, several print and online news media and a lot of physicians continue to make the confusion between NF1 and the disease the "elephant man". This misconception contributes to misinformation about the disease, feeding prejudices against affected patients, exacerbating the negative impacts of the disease on their quality of life, their cognitive development, their reproductive choices, as well as depriving them of proper care and appropriate genetic counseling. CONCLUSION: If family physicians and pediatricians were properly informed about the disease, they could refer their patients with NF1 to NF clinics and to specialists. Thus, patients and their family members would benefit from better-tailored clinical management of their cases, perhaps even optimal management. [corrected]

Neurofibromatosis type 1: persisting misidentification of the "elephant man" disease.

BACKGROUND: during informal interviews in the course of an ethnographic study on intergenerational dialogue between individuals with neurofibromatosis and their parents, many members of Canadian neurofibromatosis associations have stated that they continue to be told the condition that afflicts them or their children is "elephant man's disease." Today, even though well-established clinical criteria make it possible to diagnose and differentiate the 2 diseases, the confusion between neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and elephant man's disease persists in both the media's and physicians' representations. METHODS: this was an ethnographic study in medical anthropology. DISCUSSION: some reference sources and print and online news media have all contributed to the persistence of the association between NF1 and elephant man's disease. Our observations suggest that confusing NF1 with the Elephant Man's condition harms the interests of those with NF1 and thus increases the burden of the disease. CONCLUSION: changes of attitude regarding medical teaching and the media could dispel the confusion among physicians and journalists.

Information and decision-making process for selective termination of dichorionic pregnancies: some French obstetricians' points of view.

BACKGROUND: In France, neither Bioethics Law nor law related to abortion make reference to selective terminations (ST). Because they apply in the context of multiple pregnancies, ST raises problems which differ from those we usually see in prenatal medicine.We wanted to know: 1) which approaches were used by obstetricians to inform couples about processes and risks of ST, 2) their role in the decision-making process of couples, and 3) their representations about the level of autonomy that couples are able to assume. METHODS: Qualitative research, eight semi-structured interviews performed with eight obstetricians from seven public hospitals in Parisian region. RESULTS: Similarities: *Necessity to devote a lot of time to information. *Importance to give the couples the maximum of time for reflection. *Belief that the final decision belongs to couples. Discordances: *Heterogeneity of revealed information. *Discrepancy in the will to assure a complete and non directive information transfer. *Divergence in representations of what is an ethical support. *Differences in the limits of the autonomy of couples. CONCLUSIONS: All physicians believe that they respect the autonomy of couples, arguing that final decision belongs to them. Paradoxically, some results are indicative of a sizeable level of directiveness from the physicians.