Antimalarial mass drug administration: ethical considerations.

Falciparum malaria is a major cause of death and illness in tropical countries, particularly in childhood. In endemic countries, a significant proportion of the community is infected with malaria asymptomatically. One promising way to eliminate malaria is to give the entire population malaria treatment. This is called mass drug administration (MDA) and it raises a number of ethical issues, as possible long-term benefits are uncertain. The effectiveness of MDA is critically dependent on level of participation, so the promised benefits to the community can be annulled by non-participation of a small number of individuals. These potential benefits range a wide spectrum, from the permanent elimination of malaria (success) to a transient reduction in the prevalence of infection and the incidence of illness (failure). The drawbacks of MDA are: inconvenience, potential toxicity, loss of confidence in the elimination campaign, possible drug resistance (though highly unlikely), and the potential for a rebound of malaria illness (if immunity is lost and malaria is reintroduced later). Other ethical issues are related to balancing individual and public health interests, and potentially limiting individual autonomy by making MDA compulsory.

Prophylaxis for blood-borne diseases during the London 7/7 mass casualty terrorist bombing: a review and the role of bioethics.

The suicide bombings in London on 7 July 2005 resulted in a mass casualty situation. Over 50% of casualties were treated at the Royal London Hospital where clinicians witnessed large numbers of severely injured patients. In some casualties human biological foreign material was found embedded in the soft tissue originating from the suicide bombers or other casualties. This had the potential of placing individuals at risk of transmission of blood-borne diseases. Advances in the fields of medicine and biology have led to increased survivorship in the context of trauma and mass casualty incidents. This has resulted in the emergence of ethical scenarios surrounding patient management. A systematic review of the literature of the 7/7 bombings, and suicide bombings reported globally, where biological implantation is noted, was performed to examine the medicolegal issues arising during such attack. Twelve casualties with human tissue implanted were recorded in the 7/7 bombings. While all patients at risk were given prophylaxis based on recommendations by the Health Protection Agency, several ethical considerations surfaced as a result. In this paper, we compare the sequence of events and the management process of the victims of the 7/7 bombings and the evidence-based research regarding blood-borne infection transmission. Furthermore, it explores the ethical dilemmas, experienced by the senior author on 7/7, surrounding prophylaxis for blood-borne diseases and protocols to avoid confusion over best practice in future bombing incidents.

Legal Barriers to Adolescent Participation in Research About HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Infections.

Whether adolescents can participate in clinical trials of pharmacologic therapies for HIV prevention, such as preexposure prophylaxis, without parental permission hinges on state minor consent laws. Very few of these laws explicitly authorize adolescents to consent to preventive services for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Unclear state laws may lead to research cessation. We have summarized legal, ethical, and policy considerations related to adolescents' participation in HIV and sexually transmitted infection prevention research in the United States, and we have explored strategies for facilitating adolescents' access.