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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Waivers of parental consent for sexual minority youth

ABSTRACT

The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine emphasizes the need for research to focus on the health outcomes of sexual minority youth (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer). However, sexual minority youth (SMY) are often less willing to participate in research studies where parental consent is required due to potential victimization and discrimination. This is a major concern given that more research is needed to understand the health needs of this population, especially in terms of suicide, substance use, and HIV prevention. The National Suicide Prevention Strategy classifies SMY as a high-risk group, emphasizing the need to explore suicide risks (along with other health outcomes) among this group. However, this high-risk classification also increases the safeguards necessary to conduct research with this population. Many researchers have argued for waivers of parental consent, but such waivers present with several ethical implications. This article discusses ethical principles, risks, benefits, safeguards, and potential alternative approaches to waivers of parental consent for SMY. We conclude by emphasizing the need for policy changes to allow parental consent waivers for research targeting SMY.     

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.     

Ethical guidelines for research with children: A review of current research ethics documentation in New Zealand

Abstract

Children's rights to participate in matters affecting them, including research, have gained increasing recognition over recent decades. This recognition, and the growth in research with children as participants, has given rise to greater attention from researchers to ethical issues related to child research. This article reviews the current ethics documentation in New Zealand. The findings indicate that considerable variation exists between ethical codes and guidelines in relation to research with children. The dominant focus is on attending to issues of consent and protection from harm, at the outset of the research, rather than recognition of the ongoing nature of ethical issues throughout the research process. Although the findings indicate an increase in the consideration of ethical issues, the existing documentation is inconsistent and inadequate in attending to specific child‐related issues. Suggestions are made to enhance children's participation in research and demonstrate a respect for their participation rights.     

Informed consent of very sick subjects in Nigeria

This article highlights a number of ethical challenges I face in obtaining informed consent from very sick subjects with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Some of the subjects with TB have an associated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. From my experience in administering informed consent and health surveys, I found the subjects to be generally mentally stable but physically exhausted. Many of the very sick subjects cough excessively and cannot tolerate a 45-minute conversation with the study staff in order for them to administer consent and conduct a survey after the routine clinical evaluation. In this situation, the administration of a qualitative consent that preserves the subject's right and autonomy becomes a challenge.     

Informed Consent of Very Sick Subjects in Nigeria

This article highlights a number of ethical challenges I face in obtaining informed consent from very sick subjects with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Some of the subjects with TB have an associated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. From my experience in administering informed consent and health surveys, I found the subjects to be generally mentally stable but physically exhausted. Many of the very sick subjects cough excessively and cannot tolerate a 45-minute conversation with the study staff in order for them to administer consent and conduct a survey after the routine clinical evaluation. In this situation, the administration of a qualitative consent that preserves the subject's right and autonomy becomes a challenge.     

Ethical Beliefs of Social Work Researchers

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the beliefs of social work researchers about ethical practices. Surveys were mailed to a random sample of 240 members of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) to elicit their views about ethical practices in social work research. Responses from 160 members (67% response rate) yielded information regarding the appropriateness of dual relationships, authorship practices, informed consent procedures, and other conduct in social work research. Age, gender, educational level, years of social work research experience, and current teaching of social work research were related to respondents' ethical views about practices with students and sexual relationships with research subjects. The need for additional resources on ethics in social work research is highlighted.     

International research: Ethical imperialism or ethical pluralism? 1

Conflicts have arisen in international research when countries in which research is being carried out lack the ethical rules or mechanisms for review employed in the United States and Europe. It is objected that a requirement to adhere to regulations promulgated by the US government constitutes “ethical imperialism.”; But if researchers in some countries need not be bound by ethical standards widely accepted in the conduct of research, it could open the door to an ethical relativism allowing virtually any standard a country desires to accept. One example is the variations in informed consent, especially in countries that accord lesser importance to the individual than do the US and Europe. A recent controversy centered on a series of placebo‐controlled, HIV/AIDS trials sponsored by the United States and conducted in several developing countries. These trials could not ethically be carried out in the United States because a proven effective treatment exists. Attempts to avoid similar controversies in forthcoming HIV/AIDS vaccine trials have been initiated by the joint United Nations AIDS program, with a process of regional consultations in the countries where the research will be conducted.     

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.     

Ethical consideration of the research proposal and the informed-consent process: An online survey of researchers and ethics committee members in Thailand

Researchers designing and conducting studies using human data should consider the values and principles of ethical conduct. Research ethics committees (RECs) typically evaluate the ethical acceptability of research proposals. Sometimes, differences arise between how researchers and RECs interpret ethical principles, and how they decide what constitutes ethical conduct. This study aimed to explore the opinions of these two groups about the importance of core ethical issues in the proposal and in the informed-consent process. An anonymous online questionnaire was distributed to a target population in health-related academic/research institutes across Thailand; 219 researchers and 72 REC members participated. Significantly, more REC members than researchers attributed the highest importance to three core ethical considerations – risk/benefit, vulnerability, and confidentiality/privacy. For the informed-consent process, significant differences were found for communication of risks, decision-making authority for consent, process for approaching study participants, and availability of a contact for study deviations/violations. The different ratings indicate differences in the groups’ perspectives on ethical principles, which may affect focal congruence on ethical issues in the proposal. Communication of these findings should help close gaps between REC and researcher perceptions. Further study should investigate how RECs and researchers perceive equivocal ethics terms.     

Excluding particular information from consent forms

Although the informed consent process is crucial to protecting human research subjects, there are cases when particular information within the consent form may present risks to those subjects. In this paper, we examine a case in which including the sponsor's name on the consent form may allow the form to serve as a surrogate for subjects' HIV status. There is no literature addressing the ethical acceptability of excluding particular information from consent forms, and there exists little regulatory guidance on this issue. We argue that excluding information from the consent form is, in fact, obligatory when that information is disclosed orally during the consent process but its presence on the form poses risks to the subjects the consent process is designed to protect. Further, we argue that the regulations ought to be amended to reflect this obligation.     

EXCLUDING PARTICULAR INFORMATION FROM CONSENT FORMS

Although the informed consent process is crucial to protecting human research subjects, there are cases when particular information within the consent form may present risks to those subjects. In this paper, we examine a case in which including the sponsor’s name on the consent form may allow the form to serve as a surrogate for subjects’ HIV status.

There is no literature addressing the ethical acceptability of excluding particular information from consent forms, and there exists little regulatory guidance on this issue. We argue that excluding information from the consent form is, in fact, obligatory when that information is disclosed orally during the consent process but its presence on the form poses risks to the subjects the consent process is designed to protect. Further, we argue that the regulations ought to be amended to reflect this obligation.