Disclosure of individual surgeon's performance rates during informed consent: ethical and epistemological considerations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the paper is to examine the ethical arguments for and against disclosing surgeon-specific performance rates to patients during informed consent, and to examine the challenges that generating and using performance rates entail. METHODS: Ethical, legal, and statistical theory is explored to approach the question of whether, when, and how surgeons should disclosure their personal performance rates to patients. The main ethical question addressed is what type of information surgeons owe their patients during informed consent. This question comprises 3 related, ethically relevant considerations that are explored in detail: 1) Does surgeon-specific performance information enhance patient decision-making? 2) Do patients want this type of information? 3) How do the potential benefits of disclosure balance against the risks? RESULTS: Calculating individual performance measures requires tradeoffs and involves inherent uncertainty. There is a lack of evidence regarding whether patients want this information, whether it facilitates their decision-making for surgery, and how it is best communicated to them. Disclosure of personal performance rates during informed consent has the potential benefits of enhancing patient autonomy, improving patient decision-making, and improving quality of care. The major risks of disclosure include inaccurate and misleading performance rates, avoidance of high-risk cases, unjust damage to surgeon's reputations, and jeopardized patient trust. CONCLUSION: At this time, we think that, for most conditions, surgical procedures, and outcomes, the accuracy of surgeon- and patient-specific performance rates is illusory, obviating the ethical obligation to communicate them as part of the informed consent process. Nonetheless, the surgical profession has the duty to develop information systems that allow for performance to be evaluated to a high degree of accuracy. In the meantime, patients should be informed of the quantity of procedures their surgeons have performed, providing an idea of the surgeon's experience and qualitative idea of potential risk.

Safety issues in cell-based intervention trials.

We report on the deliberations of an interdisciplinary group of experts in science, law, and philosophy who convened to discuss novel ethical and policy challenges in stem cell research. In this report we discuss the ethical and policy implications of safety concerns in the transition from basic laboratory research to clinical applications of cell-based therapies derived from stem cells. Although many features of this transition from lab to clinic are common to other therapies, three aspects of stem cell biology pose unique challenges. First, tension regarding the use of human embryos may complicate the scientific development of safe and effective cell lines. Second, because human stem cells were not developed in the laboratory until 1998, few safety questions relating to human applications have been addressed in animal research. Third, preclinical and clinical testing of biologic agents, particularly those as inherently complex as mammalian cells, present formidable challenges, such as the need to develop suitable standardized assays and the difficulty of selecting appropriate patient populations for early phase trials. We recommend that scientists, policy makers, and the public discuss these issues responsibly, and further, that a national advisory committee to oversee human trials of cell therapies be established.