Purpose Despite important recent work, US public attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not well understood. Public opinion data can help shape efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore public perspectives toward a range of consent models currently being used or considered for use among comprehensive US biobanks. Methods The study used an exploratory mixed-methods design, using focus groups and telephone surveys. Eligible participants were English-speaking residents in the catchment area of a comprehensive biobank being developed at the University of Iowa. Results Forty-eight participants in seven focus groups and 751 survey participants were recruited. Biobanks were unfamiliar to almost all study participants but were seen as valuable resources. Most focus group (63%) and survey (67%) participants preferred a prospective opt-in over an opt-out consent approach. Broad, research-unspecific consent was preferred over categorical and study-specific consent models for purposes of approving future research use. Conclusion Many individuals may want to make an active and informed choice at the point of being approached for biobank participation but are prepared to consent broadly to future research use and to forego additional choices as a result.

Goals of care are often mentioned as an important component of end-of-life discussions, but there are diverse assessments regarding the type and number of goals that should be considered. To address this lack of consensus, we searched MEDLINE (1967-2007) for relevant articles and identified the number, phrasing, and type of goals they addressed. An iterative process of categorization resulted in a list of 6 practical, comprehensive goals: (1) be cured, (2) live longer, (3) improve or maintain function/quality of life/ independence, (4) be comfortable, (5) achieve life goals, and (6) provide support for family/caregiver. These goals can be used to articulate goal-oriented frameworks to guide decision making toward the end of life and thereby harmonize patients' treatment choices with their values and medical conditions.

Candidate selection for liver transplantation presents challenging ethical issues that require balancing the principles of justice and utility. The goal of this study was to assess the opinions of US transplant providers regarding the ways in which controversial medical and psychosocial characteristics influence patient eligibility for liver transplantation. An online, anonymous survey about adult patient characteristics was sent to providers (hepatologists, surgeons, psychiatrists, and social workers) at all 102 active adult liver transplant centers in the United States. A majority of the providers (251/444 or 56.5%) completed the survey. The providers were queried about 8 characteristics, and the 3 that were ranked most controversial were incarceration, marijuana use, and psychiatric diagnoses. Most providers identified a patient age 80 years (62.7%), a body mass index 45 kg/m 2 (56.6%), and current incarceration with a lifetime sentence (54.7%) as absolute contraindications to liver transplantation. In a multivariate analysis, the identification of absolute contraindications varied significantly with the provider type, the center volume, and the geographical region. Less than half of the providers reported that their centers had written policies regarding most of the characteristics examined. In conclusion, providers differ significantly in their opinions on controversial patient characteristics and transplant contraindications. Along with a paucity of literature data on outcomes, these provider differences may play a role in the fact that many centers do not have formal policies for selecting patients with these characteristics. Evidence-based data on the outcomes of such patients are needed to guide the formation of written policies to better standardize eligibility criteria.

Doctors need to address patients' knowledge about CPR and take steps to avoid discrepancies between treatment orders and patients' preferences. Addressing CPR outcome probabilities and goals of care during code status discussions may improve patients' knowledge and influence their preferences.

No abstract