In response to slow progress regarding technological innovations to manage type 1 diabetes, some patients have created unregulated do-it-yourself artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS). Yet both in the United Kingdom (UK) and internationally, there is an almost complete lack of specific guidance – legal, regulatory, or ethical – for clinicians caring for DIY APS users. Uncertainty regarding their professional obligations has led to them being cautious about discussing DIY APS with patients, let alone recommending or prescribing them. In this article, we argue that this approach threatens to undermine trust and transparency. Analysing the professional guidance from the UK regulator – the General Medical Council – we demonstrate that nothing within it ought to be interpreted as precluding clinicians from initiating discussions about DIY APS. Moreover, in some circumstances, it may require that clinicians do so. We also argue that the guidance does not preclude clinicians from prescribing such unapproved medical devices.

In light of the variety of uses of the term autonomy in recent bioethics literature, in this paper, I suggest that competence, not being as contested, is better placed to play the anti-paternalistic role currently assigned to autonomy. The demonstration of competence, I will argue, can provide individuals with robust spheres of non-interference in which they can pursue their lives in accordance with their own values. This protection from paternalism is achieved by granting individuals rights to non-interference upon demonstration of competence. In this paper, I present a risk-sensitive account of competence as a means of grounding rights to non-interference. On a risk-sensitive account of competence individuals demonstrate their competence by exercising three capacities to the extent necessary to meet a threshold determined by the riskiness of the decision. These three capacities are the capacity to (i) acquire knowledge, (ii) use instrumental rationality, and (iii) form and revise a life plan.

A growing number of individuals with type 1 diabetes are choosing to use “do-it-yourself” artificial pancreas systems (DIY APS) to support their diabetes self-management. Observational and self-report data of glycemic benefits of DIY APS are promising; however, without rigorous clinical trials or regulation from governing bodies, liability and user safety continue to be central concerns for stakeholders. Despite DIY APS having been used for several years now, there are no guidelines to assist users and healthcare professionals in addressing DIY APS use in routine clinical care. This commentary reports key stakeholders’ perspectives presented at the annual Advanced Technologies and Treatments in Diabetes conference in February 2020. Important considerations to inform the development of clinical care guidelines are also presented to generate further debate.

No abstract

In Pharmaceutical Freedom Professor Flanigan argues we ought to grant people self-medication rights for the same reasons we respect people's right to give (or refuse to give) informed consent to treatment. Despite being the most comprehensive argument in favour of self-medication written to date, Flanigan's Pharmaceutical Freedom leaves a number of questions unanswered, making it unclear how the safeguards Flanigan incorporates to protect people from harming themselves would work in practice. In this paper, I extend Professor Flanigan's account by discussing a hypothetical case to illustrate how these safeguards could work together to protect people from harms caused by their own ignorance or incompetence.