A reactive FFP transfusion strategy required less plasma transfusion and was associated with similar rates of blood loss and PRBC transfusion as prophylactic FFP despite improvement in coagulation values in the prophylactic FFP group.

Mental health disorders in adolescents present some of the most challenging of all ethical dilemmas. This is particularly true when they lead to self-injurious behavior that can only be prevented by either limiting the freedom of the adolescent or forcing treatments on them that they do not want. Intentional and repeated foreign-body ingestion (FBI) in youth is a poorly understood self-injurious behavior that can be life-threatening. It poses unique clinical and ethical challenges. Ingestion of sharp or magnetic objects increases the need for endoscopic retrieval or surgical intervention with associated risks, including perforation and anesthesia-related adverse events. When behavior modification efforts fail to prevent recurrent FBI, the cumulative risk of medical intervention mounts. Sometimes, as a last resort, doctors consider surgical procedures that limit jaw movement and may physically prevent recurrent FBI. In this Ethics Rounds article, we present a case in which doctors consider whether it is in the best interest of a teenager with this behavior to undergo orthodontic jaw wiring as a next step in treatment of repeated FBI. Doctor commentary on the ethical decision-making process is provided.

When a child needs surgery, both the surgeon and the anesthesiologist must obtain informed consent from the parents. In theory, each specialist obtains permission for their respective portion of the procedure, with the anesthesiologist only obtaining informed consent for the administration of anesthesia and management in the operating room and recovery room. However, he or she may occasionally realize that the parents have misunderstandings about what the surgery and perioperative course entail. In such cases, he or she must decide whether their role is only to discuss the issues related to anesthesia care or whether he or she should also clarify the range of expected outcomes and the postoperative course after surgery. We present a case in which such a dilemma arose and on which we sought experts in anesthesia and ethics to comment.

No abstract