Workshop: Emerging Ethical and Legal Challenges in Chronic Neurological Conditions

med fom neuroethics.sites.olt.ubc.ca files 2014 08 NeuroEthicsCleveland.pdf
Wednesday & Thursday
October 8 & 9, 2014
Global Center for Health Innovation and Cleveland Convention Center
St. Clair Ave. NE & E 6th Street
Cleveland, OH

About the workshop:
The care of patients with serious chronic neurological conditions poses difficult ethical and legal dilemmas that extend beyond the acute care setting. This conference provides an opportunity for participants to engage in discussions regarding continuously emerging and profound legal and ethical challenges.
The topics for this conference include:

• Obligations to provide or withhold innovative or alternative therapies
• Societal and social issues in our new healthcare systems and the problem of stigma
• Nonepileptic seizures and other conversion disorders: A dialogue about emerging issues
• Public Health & Epilepsy: Considering driving, guns, and advocacy

The format of the conference will offer framework presentations by leading individuals from medicine, law, and ethics, followed by structured exploration and discussions. The paradigm of epilepsy will be used to highlight many of the ethical dilemmas, but there will be connections drawn to a variety of neurological illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, early Alzheimer’s, chronic pain, and Parkinson disease that span from pediatrics to geriatrics.

Target audience:
Neurologists, neurosurgeons, psychiatrists, lawyers, advance care nurses, physician assistants, ethicists, psychologists, health services specialists, and social workers who address practical and ethical challenges related to chronic neurological conditions.

For more details, view brochure here.
Website: www.ccfcme.org/epilepsy14
Note: There are four symposia being offered in the same week, three of which are Epilepsy related. Please do not let this confuse you. The ethics conference is held in conjunction with the others.

Coerced Metamorphosis: Consent to Rehabilitative Treatment in Criminal Law

As part of the Brain Matters! Vancouver Thematic Sessions Video Podcast, we present:

Coerced Metamorphosis: Consent to Rehabilitative Treatment in Criminal Law
by Jennifer Chandler, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

This video presentation summarizes Prof. Chandler’s responses to the question of what forms of interventions can be offered to offenders in the context of legally coerced consent.

For more information, please visit: www.brainmattersvancouver.ca

Don’t forget to:
Subscribe at our Youtube Channel! youtube.com/user/NeuroethicsUBC
Like us on Facebook! facebook.com/NeuroethicsUBC
Follow us on Twitter! @NeuroethicsUBC | #BrainMatters

Inclusive Public Policy for Neuroscience and Ethics

As part of the Brain Matters! Vancouver Thematic Sessions Video Podcast, we present:

Inclusive Public Policy for Neuroscience and Ethics
by Andrew Stirling, Co-Director, STEPS Centre, University of Sussex

This video presentation highlights the key points to Dr. Stirling’s session on inclusive public policy for neuroscience and ethics.

*Dr. Stirling’s presentation slides are available here (PDF).

For more information, please visit: www.brainmattersvancouver.ca

Don’t forget to:
Subscribe at our Youtube Channel! youtube.com/user/NeuroethicsUBC
Like us on Facebook! facebook.com/NeuroethicsUBC
Follow us on Twitter! @NeuroethicsUBC | #BrainMatters

The Chemistry Between Us: The Science of Love and Bonding

As part of the Brain Matters! Vancouver Thematic Sessions Video Podcast, we present:

The Chemistry Between Us: The Science of Love and Bonding
by Larry J. Young, Director, Center for Translational Social Neuroscience, Emory University

This video podcast highlights the main points in Dr. Young’s talk on studies on the chemicals in the brain (in both voles and humans) and the implications of these observations for designing new treatments for psychiatric disorders characterized by disruptions in social relationships, including autism.

For more information, please visit: www.brainmattersvancouver.ca

Don’t forget to:
Subscribe at our Youtube Channel! youtube.com/user/NeuroethicsUBC
Like us on Facebook! facebook.com/NeuroethicsUBC
Follow us on Twitter! @NeuroethicsUBC | #BrainMatters

Neurology, Neuroethics, Neurotechnology: The New Challenges

As part of the Brain Matters! Vancouver Thematic Sessions Video Podcast, we present:

Neurology, Neuroethics, Neurotechnology: The New Challenges
by Elena Moro, Professor, Joseph Fourier University-CHU Grenoble

This video presentation features key points from Dr. Moro’s session on the use of deep brain stimulation and neuroethics.

For more information, please visit: www.brainmattersvancouver.ca

Don’t forget to:
Subscribe at our Youtube Channel! youtube.com/user/NeuroethicsUBC
Like us on Facebook! facebook.com/NeuroethicsUBC
Follow us on Twitter! @NeuroethicsUBC | #BrainMatters

Neurotechnology for Our Homes and Our Nations: The Neuroethics of Privacy and Security

As part of the Brain Matters! Vancouver Thematic Sessions Video Podcast, we present:

Neurotechnology for Our Homes and Our Nations: The Neuroethics of Privacy and Security
by James Giordano, Chief, Neuroethics Studies Program, Georgetown University Medical Center

This video podcast highlights key points from Dr. Giordano’s lecture on the role of neurotechnology on addressing legal/neuroethical issues and its implications on the law, public safety, and security.

For more information, please visit: www.brainmattersvancouver.ca

Don’t forget to:
Subscribe at our Youtube Channel! youtube.com/user/NeuroethicsUBC
Like us on Facebook! facebook.com/NeuroethicsUBC
Follow us on Twitter! @NeuroethicsUBC | #BrainMatters

Terms and Conditions may apply

An alternative Regulatory Framework for medical technology

Attending ‘The Real Deal on Stem Cell Therapies” at Science World this week, I was fascinated to hear the industry perspective on the future of Regenerative Medicine (presented by Gregory Bonfiglio). We heard about the obstacles that hamper medical technology as a viable investment for many, as 10-15 years of clinical trials are required before an intervention, such as stem cell based technologies, are approved and allowed onto the market. Only then can investors see a return. This long process, the translation of therapies from bench to bedside affects patient outcomes too. We then heard of an alternative Regulatory approach (see Hara, Sato & Sahara, 2014 for full details). As a Neuroethics researcher, currently immersed in the world of clinical trials, hearing about the Japanese approach to regenerative medicine regulations got me thinking…

At present, in the USA, Canada and Europe, all health technologies (including medications) must provide evidence from 3 phases of clinical trial before Regulatory approval. Only then can it be released to the market (see Figure1 for a rough summary). This process can take up to 15 years, and during this time only participants in the trials have access to the experimental intervention.

Figure 1: Current Regulatory Model

Clinical Trial summary

The new Japanese regulation, coming into effect November 1st, 2014, will allow for Conditional Approval earlier in the regulatory process. This will be granted to a regenerative medicine after safety has been established, and if indications of efficacy are present. Full evidence of efficacy is not required. Looking at the traditional model in Figure 1, this Conditional approval is based on evidence similar to that from a Phase 2 clinical trial. Conditional approval allows the intervention onto the market, and can be used by physicians according to their judgment, similar to fully approved treatments. In order to gain Full approval, there is a requirement for evidence of efficacy (akin to Phase 3) to be presented within 7 years.

So what does this might this mean in practice?

For patients who are waiting for new treatment options, particularly those who do not meet the criteria for clinical trial participation, they can try new things sooner, and from their own doctor in a regulated manner. This may reduce medical tourism, and ensure that patients receive experimental interventions that are safe, if not necessarily effective.

For Industry, it shortens the lengthy time schedule from investment to market, so investors can see a financial return earlier. This could open the market to more investors, more alternative research endeavors and more options on the market in future.

Yet, as one audience member pointed out, this might not be ideal for patients. Participants in clinical trials do not pay for the experimental treatment. In this new regulatory system patients/the health care system would pay for conditionally-approved interventions i.e. interventions that might not work. Is this ethical? And what would this mean for placebo-controlled trials? Who would volunteer to perhaps be assigned to a placebo group if they have access to the intervention outside of a clinical trial?

Public acceptance can offer legitimacy to a health technology despite a lack of evidence. We live in a world where homeopathy is ‘approved’ by Health Canada (due to it’s safety, and not, as one would assume, due to it’s efficacy), where stem cell tourism thrives on a public belief that the cures are being withheld from them, and a world where internet diagnostic sites are consulted more than one’s own family doctor.

Is it then reckless to allow ‘conditionally-approved’ medications onto the market where they can cultivate a legitimacy far removed from scientific evidence-based medicine?

Or is it more damaging to maintain a cumbersome and slow regulatory process that delays the translation of science, thus losing the public’s trust as they turn to a market of readily available, yet unscientific ‘quick fixes’?

Does allowing earlier ‘conditional’ access to treatments undermine the integrity of a scientific evidence base?

One hopes that conditional approval is regulated and clarified as such so that patients are fully informed of the status of their intervention options. And, on a policy level, one hopes that there are mechanisms in place to prevent abuses, that there are disincentives to marketing a product that later proves ineffective.

However it turns out, I am intrigued to see how the new regulations in Japan impact the face of regenerative medicine globally. While it may go lengths to address the tangible hunger for immediate access to experimental interventions, I hope that the integrity of the scientific method can withstand the enormous market pressures to provide ‘miracle’ cures.

Hara, A., Sato, D. & Sahara, Y (2014). New Governmental Regulatory System for Stem Cell–Based Therapies in Japan. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science.