Karin Nordström

Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition

This article discusses the prospects and limitations of the scientific basis for offering personalized nutrition advice based upon individual genetic information. Two divergent scientific positions are presented, with an ethical comment. The crucial question is whether the current knowledge base is sufficiently strong for taking an ethically responsible decision to offer personalized nutrition advice based upon gene–diet–health interaction. According to the first position, the evidence base for translating the outcomes of nutrigenomics research into personalized nutritional advice is as yet immature. There is also limited evidence that genotype-based dietary advice will motivate appropriate behavior changes. Filling the gaps in our knowledge will require larger and better randomized controlled trials. According to the second position, personalized nutrition must be evaluated in relation to generally accepted standard dietary advice—partly derived from epidemiological observations and usually not proven by clinical trials. With personalized nutrition, we cannot demand stronger evidence. In several specific cases of gene–diet interaction, it may be more beneficial for individuals with specific genotypes to follow personalized advice rather than general dietary recommendations. The ethical comment, finally, considers the ethical aspects of deciding how to proceed in the face of such uncertainty. Two approaches for an ethically responsible way forward are proposed. Arguing from a precautionary approach, it is suggested that personalized dietary advice should be offered only when there is strong scientific evidence for health effects, followed by stepwise evaluation of unforeseen behavioral and psychological effects. Arguing from theoretical and applied ethics as well as psychology, it is also suggested that personalized advice should avoid paternalism and instead focus on supporting the autonomous choice of each person.

Consumers on the Internet: ethical and legal aspects of commercialization of personalized nutrition

Consumers often have a positive attitude to the option of receiving personalized nutrition advice based upon genetic testing, since the prospect of enhancing or maintaining one’s health can be perceived as empowering. Current direct-to-consumer services over the Internet, however, suffer from a questionable level of truthfulness and consumer protection, in addition to an imbalance between far-reaching promises and contrasting disclaimers. Psychological and behavioral studies indicate that consumer acceptance of a new technology is primarily explained by the end user’s rational and emotional interpretation as well as moral beliefs. Results from such studies indicate that personalized nutrition must create true value for the consumer. Also, the freedom to choose is crucial for consumer acceptance. From an ethical point of view, consumer protection is crucial, and caution must be exercised when putting nutrigenomic-based tests and advice services on the market. Current Internet offerings appear to reveal a need to further guaranty legal certainty by ensuring privacy, consumer protection and safety. Personalized nutrition services are on the borderline between nutrition and medicine. Current regulation of this area is incomplete and undergoing development. This situation entails the necessity for carefully assessing and developing existing rules that safeguard fundamental rights and data protection while taking into account the sensitivity of data, the risks posed by each step in their processing, and sufficient guarantees for consumers against potential misuse.

Food and health: individual, cultural, or scientific matters?

In personalized nutrition, food is a tool for good health, implying an instrumental relationship between food and health. Food receives a secondary value, while health would appear to be a descriptive biological concept. This article gives an introduction to cultural understandings of food and health. The wider definition of food and health is explored in relation to the commonly used scientific approach that tends to take a more reductionist approach to food and health. The different discourses on food and health are being discussed in relation to ethical aspects of personalized nutrition. The success of personalized nutrition is likely dependent upon the ability to integrate the scientific approach with everyday cultural, emotional, ethical, and sensual understandings of food. Health theories can be divided into two principal rival types—biostatistical and holistic. Biostatistical focuses on survival, while holistic focuses on ability as a precondition for health. Arguments in favor of a holistic and individualistic theory of health and illness are presented. This implies a focus on the ability of the individual to realize his or her “vital goals.” A holistic and individualistic health concept may have a reinforcing effect on the individualized approach in personalized nutrition. It allows focus on individual health premises and related dietary means of health promotion, as well as an individualized perspective on the objectives of health promotion. An individualistic notion of health also indicates that people with high levels of vital goals benefit more easily. To reach beyond these groups is likely difficult. This potential injustice should be balanced with global preventive medical programs.

Values at stake: autonomy, responsibility, and trustworthiness in relation to genetic testing and personalized nutrition advice

Personalized nutrition has the potential to enhance individual health control. It could be seen as a means to strengthen people’s autonomy as they learn more about their personal health risks, and receive dietary advice accordingly. We examine in what sense personalized nutrition strengthens or weakens individual autonomy. The impact of personalized nutrition on autonomy is analyzed in relation to responsibility and trustworthiness. On a societal level, individualization of health promotion may be accompanied by the attribution of extended individual responsibility for one’s health. This constitutes a dilemma of individualization, caused by a conflict between the right to individual freedom and societal interests. The extent to which personalized nutrition strengthens autonomy is consequently influenced by how responsibility for health is allocated to individuals. Ethically adequate allocation of responsibility should focus on prospective responsibility and be differentiated with regard to individual differences concerning the capacity of adults to take responsibility. The impact of personalized nutrition on autonomy also depends on its methodological design. Owing to the complexity of information received, personalized nutrition through genetic testing (PNTGT) is open to misinterpretation and may not facilitate informed choices and autonomy. As new technologies, personalized nutrition and PNTGT are subject to issues of trust. To strengthen autonomy, trust should be approached in terms of trustworthiness. Trustworthiness implies that an organization that develops or introduces personalized nutrition can show that it is competent to deal with both the technical and moral dimensions at stake and that its decisions are motivated by the interests and expectations of the truster.

Preventing elder abuse and neglect in geriatric institutions: Solutions from nursing care providers

ABSTRACT This study explores how and why abuse and neglect occurs in geriatric institutions and presents practical prevention measures. Exploratory qualitative interviews were carried out with purposive sample of 23 nursing staff members. They were recruited from different institutions caring for older patients in the north‐western region of Switzerland. These interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participating nursing staff members reported several factors pertaining to the care provider, the older patient, and the institution that precipitated abuse and neglect. They mentioned different solutions that could help them address their responsibilities in a reasonable manner. The solutions included, for example, ensuring proper education and training, better management nursing care providers responsibilities and timely intervention to address abuse and neglect, as well as rotating care provider. Implementing these suggestions will allow geriatric institutions, its managers, and nursing care providers to improve quality of care and reduce such negative occurrences in these settings.

Caring for elder patients: Mutual vulnerabilities in professional ethics

Background: Neglect and abuse of elders in care institutions is a recurring issue in the media. Elders in care institutions are vulnerable due to their physical, cognitive, and verbal limitations. Such vulnerabilities may make them more susceptible to mistreatment by caregivers on whom they are heavily dependent. Objectives: The goal was to understand caregivers’ concerns about ensuring correct and proper treatment, as well as their experiences with neglect and abuse of older patients. This article examines resources and challenges of professional ethics within the care setting. Research design: A study was conducted to explore the quality of care provided to older patients in nursing homes, geriatrics institutions, and ambulant care in the northwest region of Switzerland. Participants and research context: A total of 23 semi-structured interviews were conducted with nursing staff of varying experience levels. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval was granted by the competent regional ethics commission, Ethikkomission Nordwest-und Zentralschweiz EKNZ [Ethics Commission Northwest and Central Switzerland] (2014-015). Findings: Three themes emerged from our data analysis: professional identity, professional context, and professional relationships. Our findings indicate mutual vulnerabilities within these three themes, characterizing the interactions between nursing staff and older patients. Study participants believe that incidences of error, neglect, and abuse are consequences of their own vulnerability since they are not able to meet the demands of an overstraining work situation. Discussion: Different aspects of this mutual vulnerability are described and critically discussed as challenges for professional ethics. Conclusion: Early education, continuous training as well as better management and response from the institution are necessary to maintain professionalism while handling mutual vulnerabilities.