The therapeutic misconception,beneficence, and respect

In order to provide benefits to society, human medical trials must place subjects at risk of harm. This activity is thought to be justified in part by the consent of the subjects involved. But, studies have shown that most such consents are based on a therapeutic misconception (TM); the false belief of subjects that their researchers will act as their personal physicians (seeking their benefit and protecting them from harm), rather than placing them at risk of harm for the good of others. Toleration by researchers of the TM in their subjects is a form of “informational manipulation”; that renders consent procedures disrespectful to subject autonomy. Consent obtained from subjects who labor under a TM is neither voluntary nor informed; as long as they have not been disabused of the TM, the action they take in enrolling in a trial is not the one they intend nor is it autonomously chosen. Changes in consent procedures should be adopted to ensure that all subjects are aware inter alia that (a) the health interests of future patients (as well as the researchers’ and their sponsors’ financial interests) may be more important to researchers than the interest of a subject in his or her health, and (b) normal subjects neither understand nor believe this when told. Close attention to the response of prospective subjects to this information should allow for the exclusion of all but the truly altruistic. However, the result of conscientious implementation of such policies would likely be that human medical research could no longer be conducted on more than a minimal level.     

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Research Subjects: An Ethical and Legal Analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Disclosing conflicts of interest to research subjects: an ethical and legal analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interest to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

Physician duties in the conduct of human subject research

In this article, I examine a skeptical argument against the possibility of ethically justifying risky human subject research (rHSR). That argument asserts that such research is unethical because it holds the possibility of wronging subjects who are harmed and whose consent to participate was less than fully voluntary. I conclude that the skeptical argument is not in the end sufficient to undermine the ethical foundation of rHSR because it fails to take account of the special positive duty researchers owe their clients and future patients. Although the skeptical argument is defeated, it exacts certain novel concessions from the pro-research position. Of particular importance are the admissions (a) that researchers presumptively owe a fiduciary duty to research subjects, (b) that because the most important risks of rHSR are unknown and unquantifiable that duty must be explicitly waived by all subjects before they participate in any protocol, and (c) that such waivers must be made by individuals who satisfy objective criteria of competence for giving fully voluntary consent. The implementation of procedures responsive to these concerns might have a dampening effect on the conduct of research. However, the article concludes with a consideration of the likely benefits to researchers and society of a more cautious ethical regime.     

What a Tangled Web We Weave: Ethical and Legal Implications of Deception in Recruitment

Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.     

What a tangled web we weave: ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment

Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.     

Physician duties in the conduct of human subject research

In this article, I examine a skeptical argument against the possibility of ethically justifying risky human subject research (rHSR). That argument asserts that such research is unethical because it holds the possibility of wronging subjects who are harmed and whose consent to participate was less than fully voluntary. I conclude that the skeptical argument is not in the end sufficient to undermine the ethical foundation of rHSR because it fails to take account of the special positive duty researchers owe their clients and future patients. Although the skeptical argument is defeated, it exacts certain novel concessions from the pro‐research position. Of particular importance are the admissions (a) that researchers presumptively owe a fiduciary duty to research subjects, (b) that because the most important risks of rHSR are unknown and unquantifiable that duty must be explicitly waived by all subjects before they participate in any protocol, and (c) that such waivers must be made by individuals who satisfy objective criteria of competence for giving fully voluntary consent. The implementation of procedures responsive to these concerns might have a dampening effect on the conduct of research. However, the article concludes with a consideration of the likely benefits to researchers and society of a more cautious ethical regime.     

Student Projects in Medicine: A Lesson in Science and Ethics

Regulation of biomedical research is the subject of considerable debate in the bioethics and health policy worlds. The ethics and governance of medical student projects is becoming an increasingly important topic in its own right, especially in the U.K., where there are periodic calls to change it. My main claim is that there seems to be no good reason for treating student projects differently from projects led by qualified and more experienced scientists and hence no good grounds for changing the current system of ethics review. I first suggest that the educational objectives cannot be met without laying down standards of good science, whatever they may be. Weak science is unnecessary for educational purposes, and it is, in any case, unlikely to produce good researchers in the future. Furthermore, it is curious to want to change the system of ethics review specifically for students when it is the science that is at stake, and when the science now falls largely outside the ethics remit. I further show that ethics review is nevertheless important since students carry a new potential conflict of interests that warrants independent oversight which supervisory support does not offer. This potential conflict may become more morally troublesome the greater the risks to the subjects of the research, and students may impose greater risks on their subjects (relative to professional researchers) by virtue of being inexperienced, whatever the nature of the project. Pragmatic concerns may finally be allayed by organizing the current system more efficiently at critical times of the university calendar.     

Self-experimentation

Except in certain cases of unusual risk, self-experimentation should not be encouraged. It is usually scientifically inadequate for lack of proper controls and sufficient subjects to generate meaningful results. It is also inadequate as an ethical test because even if lay persons are also enrolled, self-experimentation is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish that they may participate. It is not necessary to establish that lay persons may participate because institutional ethics review and informed consent are better ways to determine this. It is not sufficient because the investigator may be more risk accepting or not medically typical. Moreover, because scientific research is now done in teams, self-experimentation may involve undue influence when junior investigators participate as research subjects.     

Dissemination to research subjects: operationalizing investigator accountability

Recent articles have argued from principles of bioethics for the right of research subjects to receive the results of the studies in which they have participated. We argue that accountability is a powerful tool of meso-level analysis appropriate to reasoning about answerability in research ethics, and that it captures the responsibility of researchers to disseminate study results to research subjects. We offer the following features of the research situation as relevant to the manner of dissemination to study subject, in addition to factors already proposed in the literature (risk and impact on health outcome): (a) features of the research subject in relation to identity, personal investment, disease, and community; (b) characteristics of the research study and field of inquiry in relation to certainty and significance; and (c) relationships among the research subjects and the healthcare workers involved in their care and in the research.     

Accountability in research using persons with mental illness

Although medical research involving the use of persons with mental illness is critically important, in order for the research to be ethical and legal there are certain considerations and restrictions which should be immediately readdressed in order to insure that the welfare of these vulnerable research subjects is protected, and their best interests are assured. A brief historical examination of medical research codes, guidelines, recommendations and Federal Regulations reveals the various considerations and restrictions on informed consent and accountability applicable to the use of persons with mental illness in medical research. Several concerns are raised about how these considerations and restrictions have been interpreted, and specific recommendations are offered to improve them immediately by means of representation from consumers and/or their families, and organizations, e.g., NAMI members.     

The protection of unrepresented patients in emergency care research

In emergency care research, it may be the case that neither informed consent nor surrogate consent is possible. In order to nonetheless allow for such research, codes and regulations of research ethics have increasingly incorporated provisions regarding this specific situation. The protection that those provisions offer need to be better understood. This article addresses in what ways they protect individuals, and especially the extent to which the suggested protection compensates for the loss of surrogate consent. The Declaration of Helsinki, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, and the EU Clinical Trials Regulation serve as the main illustrations.     

Resolving Beecher's Paradox: Getting beyond IRB reform

Protection of persons participating as research subjects is an essential element of ethical research conduct. There is growing concern that the existing system of institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent may not be adequate and is in need of reform. When science and medicine are “merged”; in clinical research, confusion of roles and conflicts of interests arise in relationships between patient‐subjects and physician‐investigators. IRBs have always had a primary role in protection of research participants. Their efforts to protect research subjects may make it more difficult for investigators to conduct research. This tension has lead to the development of an adversarial relationship between IRBs and investigators. Investigators and IRBs are also subject to external pressures that could impact efforts to protect research subjects. Efforts are underway to address these concerns. IRB reform, while needed, is not likely to be sufficient. Adoption of a new paradigm in which IRBs, investigators and research sponsors collectively accept protection of research subjects as their primary and shared responsibility may provide a more effective and efficient model that will be better able to deal with difficult ethical and social issues in clinical research.     

Ethics of research design

Discussions of ethical issues in research involving human subjects most usually provoke concerns about valid informed consent procedures. However, considering the recognized limitations of informed consent, arguably the way a study is designed is a more consequential concern for subject well‐being. This paper summarizes ethical issues in the design of clinical research, with reference to historic and current guidelines. Special attention is given to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and psychiatric research.     

Scientific evidence and the judicial system

Research involving the vulnerable sick raises difficult challenges for investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Exactly who among the ill counts as vulnerable is a matter of judgement, and involves consideration of susceptibility to harm and capacity to provide free and informed consent. A balanced approach is required when protections are considered, and the benefits as well as the risks of research participation must be carefully weighed. A variety of protections for the vulnerable sick in research are available, including enrolling subjects in a study only with a strong justification, ensuring that consent is free and comprehending, and setting limits on the risk to which they may be asked to endure. Discussion of three contemporary controversies, placebo‐controlled trials in the psychiatric setting, phase I clinical trials and oncology patients, and emergency room research involving patients incapable of giving consent, highlights the little recognized prominence of risk‐benefit issues in the clinical studies in the vulnerable sick.     

Informed parental consent for cochlear implantation of young deaf children: social and other considerations in the use of the 'bionic ear'

This paper examines the social parameters surrounding the management of informed consent procedures for the parents of young deaf children for the surgical fitting of a cochlear implant ('bionic ear') to their child. Although most observers of this remarkable and well publicised medical development only see benefits in its use, the authors examine the nature of the conflict which has emerged between medical and media portrayals of the 'miracle' device and contrasting social, cultural and linguistic views of many Deaf people. The paper analyses the components of parental consent procedures for surgical implantation of their child, covering the risk-benefit analysis and, in particular, the information base that is provided for parents about the social construction of a 'Deaf life' by many Deaf people.     

Are you sitting comfortably? Perspectives of the researchers and the researched on "being comfortable"

In a study of volunteers in medical research, we found contrasting readings of "being comfortable" by the volunteer research subjects and the researchers. Although the experimental process (testing a new kind of diagnostic technology) involved some physical discomfort--and the researchers focused on this--the volunteers' concerns centred on feeling socially comfortable and managing feelings of embarrassment or isolation, and they generally made light of the physical aspects. The bias of volunteer concerns, which is understandable in terms of the different situations of researchers and volunteers and the different tensions they create, has potential implications for the engagement of researchers with their research subjects and prevailing standards for the ethical and accountable conduct of research.     

Research on Environmental Health Interventions: Ethical Problems and Solutions

This article reviews a variety of ethical issues one must consider when conducting research on environmental health interventions on human subjects. The paper uses the Kennedy Krieger Institute lead abatement study as well as a hypothetical asthma study to discuss questions concerning benefits and risks, risk minimization, safety monitoring, the duty to warn, the duty to report, the use of control groups, informed consent, equitable subject selection, privacy, conflicts of interest, and community consultation. Research on environmental health interventions can make an important contribution to our understanding of human health and disease prevention, provided it is conducted in a manner that meets prevailing scientific, ethical, and legal standards for research on human subjects.     

Research on environmental health interventions: ethical problems and solutions

This article reviews a variety of ethical issues one must consider when conducting research on environmental health interventions on human subjects. The paper uses the Kennedy Krieger Institute lead abatement study as well as a hypothetical asthma study to discuss questions concerning benefits and risks, risk minimization, safety monitoring, the duty to warn, the duty to report, the use of control groups, informed consent, equitable subject selection, privacy, conflicts of interest, and community consultation. Research on environmental health interventions can make an important contribution to our understanding of human health and disease prevention, provided it is conducted in a manner that meets prevailing scientific, ethical, and legal standards for research on human subjects.