The informed consent aftermath of the genetic revolution. An Italian example of implementation

A great part of human genetics research is carried out collecting data and building large databases of biological samples that are in a non-anonymous format. These constitute a valuable resource for future research. The construction of such databases and tissue banks facilitates important scientific progress. However, biobanks have been recognized as ethically problematic because they contain thousands of data that could expose individuals and populations to discrimination, stigmatization and psychological stress if misused. Informed consent is regarded as a cornerstone in the protection of personal autonomy in research involving human subjects. Yet in recent years this fundamental concept has been overwhelmed by the genomic revolution. From a general overview of international literature, it seems evident that informed consent issues have come into sharp focus, in particular in relation to the twin issues of time extension (blanket versus specific/repeated consent) and personal extension (group consent). After an introduction on obtaining informed consent in the context of genetic research, this paper addresses the apparent lack of a single, universal model of obtaining informed consent among populations involved in genetic research and it argues for the need to develop an ethical framework tailored to the specific features of each project. In order to support this theory of contextualizing, the case of a private biotechnology company, SharDNA is presented. The present paper explores the management of its biobank, developed from a genetic research project carried out on isolated populations living on the Italian island of Sardinia. In particular, the paper highlights how the company is tackling the problem of informed consent and other ethical requirements for genetic research, such as the respect of individual privacy, the population approach and the existing Italian legal regulatory framework.     

Improving Medical Device Regulation: The United States and Europe in Perspective

Context: Recent debates and events have brought into question the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the United States and Europe to ensure their performance, safety, and quality. This article provides a comparative analysis of medical device regulation in the two jurisdictions, explores current reforms to improve the existing systems, and discusses additional actions that should be considered to fully meet this aim. Medical device regulation must be improved to safeguard public health and ensure that high-quality and effective technologies reach patients.Methods: We explored and analyzed medical device regulatory systems in the United States and Europe in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents.Findings: The two regulatory systems differ in their mandate and orientation, organization, pre-and postmarket evidence requirements, and transparency of process. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions face similar challenges for ensuring that only safe and effective devices reach the market, monitoring real-world use, and exchanging pertinent information on devices with key users such as clinicians and patients. To address these issues, reforms have recently been introduced or debated in the United States and Europe that are principally focused on strengthening regulatory processes, enhancing postmarket regulation through more robust surveillance systems, and improving the traceability and monitoring of devices. Some changes in premarket requirements for devices are being considered.Conclusions: Although the current reforms address some of the outstanding challenges in device regulation, additional steps are needed to improve existing policy. We examine a number of actions to be considered, such as requiring high-quality evidence of benefit for medium-and high-risk devices; moving toward greater centralization and coordination of regulatory approval in Europe; creating links between device identifier systems and existing data collection tools, such as electronic health records; and fostering increased and more effective use of registries to ensure safe postmarket use of new and existing devices.     

Simulated Patient Studies: An Ethical Analysis

Context: In connection with health care reform, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a “mystery shopper,” or simulated patient study, to measure access to primary care. But the study was shelved because of public controversy over “government spying” on doctors. Opponents of the study also raised ethical concerns about the use of deception with human subjects without soliciting their informed consent. Methods: We undertook an ethical analysis of the use of simulated patient techniques in health services research, with a particular focus on research measuring access to care. Using a case study, we explored relevant methodological considerations and ethical principles relating to deceptive research without informed consent, as well as U.S. federal regulations permitting exceptions to consent. Findings: Several relevant considerations both favor and oppose soliciting consent for simulated patient studies. Making research participation conditional on informed consent protects the autonomy of research subjects and shields them from unreasonable exposure to research risks. However, scientific validity is also an important ethical principle of human subjects research, as the net risks to subjects must be justified by the value to society of the knowledge to be gained. The use of simulated patients to monitor access is a naturalistic and scientifically sound experimental design that can answer important policy‐relevant questions, with minimal risks to human subjects. As interaction between researchers and subjects increases, however, so does the need for consent. Conclusions: As long as adequate protections of confidentiality of research data are in place, minimally intrusive simulated patient research that gathers policy‐relevant data on the health system without the consent of individuals working in that system can be ethically justified when the risks and burdens to research subjects are minimal and the research has the potential to generate socially valuable knowledge.     

Confusions in the equipoise concept and the alternative of fully informed overlapping rational decisions

Despite its several variations, the central position of equipoise is that subjects in clinical experiments should not be randomized to conditions when others believe that better alternatives exist. This position has been challenged over issues of which group in the medical or research community is authorized to make that determination, and it has been argued that informed consent provides sufficient ethical protection for participants independent of equipoise. In this paper I frame ethical participation in clinical research as a two-party decision process involving offering and accepting participation under informed consent. Nine conditions are identified in which it is possible that potential participants and researchers or care professionals can rationally choose divergent actions based on identical understandings of the situation. Under such circumstances, researchers or care professionals cannot ethically substitute their understanding of equipoise in the situation for the patients’ choices, or vice versa.     

A consumer perspective on informed consent and third-party issues.

Our two children were diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder, which led us to establish a research foundation. This led to in-depth consideration of issues surrounding informed consent from a consumer perspective. Third-party issues arose as central to the formulation of ethical policy in the establishment of a blood and tissue bank and an epidemiologic study. We suggest that a number of myths--privacy is possible, samples can be stripped of identifiers, humans are subjects, voluntary informed consent is attainable, genetics is about the individual only, genetic information is different than other medical information, research is altruistic, the public will learn truths about genetic research via media, and research is culturally competent--make it difficult to resolve the issues intrinsic to informed consent. A number of important elements could make policy decisions less complicated. These include conducting culturally competent research; conveying noncoercive hope, not hype; contacting the voluntary informant only; asking the informant to extend contact to other family members; requiring a comprehensive informed consent process for all contacted; and engaging in state-of-the-art data protections. There is a need for a "Genomic Hippocratic Oath," creating an ethical basis for research similar to the one vowed by health care professionals. Establishing ethical policies as a result of the collaboration of policy makers, researchers, and consumers will allow research to progress ethically at a rapid rate. If regulations are oppressive, they will thwart research; if they are too lenient, participants will not receive protections needed to participate safely.     

Randomized controlled trials in environmental health research: ethical issues

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are becoming increasingly common in environmental health research. Like all studies involving human subjects, environmental health RCTs raise many ethical challenges, ranging from obtaining informed consent to minimizing risks to protecting privacy and confidentiality. One of the most important issues raised by these studies is whether it is ethical to withhold effective environmental health interventions from research subjects in order to satisfy scientific objectives. Although environmental health investigators usually do not have professional obligations to provide medical care to research subjects, they have ethical obligations to avoid exploiting them. Withholding interventions from research subjects can be ethical, provided that it does not lead to exploitation of individuals or groups. To avoid exploiting individuals or groups, investigators should ensure that research subjects and study populations receive a fair share of the benefits of research.     

Informed consent from cognitively impaired persons participating in research trials: comparative law observations

This article addresses the ethical requirements to be considered when conducting clinical trials involving human subjects whose mental condition limits their ability to understand the information and to express fully autonomous and informed consent. It does not address other categories of vulnerable persons, such as children, or advanced directives concerning end-of-life care. There are many ethical issues entailed in clinical trials involving subjects with mental disabilities: how to obtain informed consent, balancing risks and benefits, balancing individual benefits with collective scientific and social interests, legal representation and many more. This article focuses on the issues surrounding the concept of minimal risk and the relationship between informed consent and risk. These issues are addressed with particular emphasis on the regulations adopted by the European Union and the federal government of the United States of America. The conclusion proposes a list of working criteria.     

Family consent and the pursuit of better medicines through genetic research.

Rapid changes in the science and technology related to genetic research are challenging scientists, health care providers, ethicists, regulators, patient groups, and the pharmaceutical industry to keep pace with ethically grounded, workable guidelines for both the research and clinical applications of human genetics. We describe the genetic research being conducted by one pharmaceutical company (GlaxoSmithKline) and how the company is addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues surrounding this research; discuss an industry working group's attempt to advance pharmacogenetic research by openly addressing and disseminating information on related ethical, legal, and regulatory issues; identify scientific and ethical differences among various types of genetic research; discuss potential implications of family consent on subject privacy and autonomy, data collection, and study conduct; and suggest points to consider when study sponsors, investigators, and ethics committees evaluate research proposals. Public and expert opinion regarding informed consent in genetic research is evolving as a result of increased education, discussion, and understanding of the relevant issues. Five years ago, there was strong support for anonymity in genetic research as a privacy safeguard. Now, an increasingly popular school of thought advocates against anonymity to preserve an individual's ability to withdraw and, if desired, access research results. It is important to recognize this evolution and address consent issues in a reasoned, practical, and consistent way, including input from patients and their families, health care providers, ethicists, scientists, regulatory bodies, research sponsors, and the lay community. Responsibility for assessing issues related to family consent for research should remain with local investigators, ethics boards, and study sponsors. A "one-size-fits-all" perspective in the form of new regulations, for example, would likely be a disservice to all.     

Candidate hepatitis C vaccine trials and people who inject drugs: Challenges and opportunities

People who inject drugs (PWID) are at high risk of HCV. Limited evidence of the effectiveness of prevention interventions and low uptake of treatment in this group highlight the need for increased investment in biomedical interventions, notably safe and efficacious vaccines. While several candidates are currently in development, field trials in PWID present challenges, including ethical issues associated with trial literacy, informed consent and standards of care. Significant biological and social factors and differences between HIV and HCV suggest that HCV warrants targeted vaccine preparedness research to lay the groundwork for successful implementation of future trials.     

Patients' perceptions of informed consent in acute myocardial infarction research: a Danish study

Seeking informed consent from patients in the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) poses an ethical challenge due to the fact that these patients are under stress and require urgent medical attention. The very procedure of informed consent, which is supposed to protect eligible patients, may in fact cause harm due to a potential delay in the provision of therapy. Whether or not informed consent can and should be obtained under these particular circumstances is far from evident. Patients participating in various large-scale AMI trials have been enrolled with, as well as without, informed consent in recent years. Little is known, however, about how patients experience the informed consent process in the emergency situation of an AMI. This paper reports the results from qualitative interviews with 32 patients, who had to decide whether or not to participate in a large multi-centre clinical trial in Denmark. We analyse to what extent patients found the informed consent process acceptable as well as how various factors influenced their experience of the consent process. We argue that it is morally sound to involve those patients in a brief and concise informed consent process and that consent should be sought in such trials. Finally, we discuss how future AMI trials may nonetheless be improved by accommodating some of the concerns of the patients.     

Motivating Donors to Genetic Research? Anthropological Reasons to Rethink the Role of Informed Consent

In this article we explore the contribution from social anthropology to the medical ethical debates about the use of informed consent in research, based on blood samples and other forms of tissue. The article springs from a project exploring donors’ motivation for providing blood and healthcare data for genetic research to be executed by a Swedish start-up genomics company. This article is not confined to empirical findings, however, as we suggest that anthropology provides reason to reassess the theoretical understanding of autonomy as generally defined by Beauchamp and Childress. Careful consideration of the trust expressed by donors through the act of donation, furthermore, suggests that there is reason to redirect the ethical scrutiny from informed consent to issues concerning institutional arrangements and social responsibility. In particular, we suggest that an anthropological approach could facilitate a reconsideration of the political implications of using informed consent as a regulatory practice in tissue-based research.     

Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent

Informed consent is increasingly heralded as an ethical panacea, a tool to counter autocratic and paternalistic medical practices. Debate about the implementation of informed consent is constricted and polarised, centering on the right of individuals to be fully informed and to freely choose versus an autocratic, paternalistic practice that negates individual choice. A bioethical framework, based on a principle-led form of reductive/deductive reasoning, dominates the current model of informed consent. Such a model tends to abstract the process of consent from its clinical and social setting. By flashing out the social process involved when patients and healthy volunteer subjects consent to take part in clinical drug trials, this paper attempts to address the problem arising from the current 'empty ethics' model. My arguments are substantiated by qualitative interview data drawn from a study I conducted on the process of consent as experienced by participants in clinical drug trials.     

Are distinctive ethical principles required for cluster randomized controlled trials?

Cluster randomized trials are increasingly used in research into health care and health services. Ethics of individual patient randomized trials have been elucidated in a number of different codes, but less attention has been given to the ethical issues raised by cluster randomized trials. I assess the challenges raised by cluster randomized controlled trials by considering three questions: What are the essential elements of ethical medical research, particularly experiments on people? What are the features which distinguish cluster randomized controlled trials from ordinary RCTs? Do the distinctive features of cluster randomized trials entail new ethical principles, or careful application of existing principles? I conclude that cluster randomized controlled trials raise new issues on the nature and practice of informed consent, because of the levels at which consent can be sought, and for which it can be sought. In addition, careful consideration of the principles relating to the quality of the scientific design and analysis, balance of risk and benefit, liberty to leave a trial, early stopping of a trial and the power to exclude people from potential benefits is required.     

Translating ethics: researching public health and medical practices in Nepal

Conducting anthropological research into situations where public health interventions are ongoing raises a number of complex ethical issues. This paper addresses this by focusing on recent debate around questions of informed consent in research situations into health care in the 'developing' world. Two issues are developed: firstly, that of anthropological engagement with medical research trials; and secondly, how medical ethics debates have impinged upon and influenced anthropological ideas of ethics. Drawing on personal anthropological research into the implementation of the WHO prescribed tuberculosis control programme (DOTS) in the context of Nepal, I outline a number of ethical dilemmas and issues that arose. This research context included other ongoing research into DOTS implementation, as well as the local culture of health care provision. It involved moving between a number of sites and subject positions while interacting with heath professionals and patients. In conclusion, rather than prescribing ethical norms for researchers in such situations, I argue that we need more ethnographic examples and case studies as a means of thinking through the issues. I suggest that we need to reflect on both the ethical issues that arise when undertaking research into multifaceted public health interventions and into the situations where ethical guidelines and stipulations are formulated. The best place for this may be the Internet, where we increasingly see the conditions emerging for open dialogue.     

Accrual to cancer clinical trials: directions from the research literature

Although randomized clinical trials are the predominant method used to evaluate cancer therapies, only a small proportion of potential participants actually enter onto trials. This paper analyzes the research literature on accrual to cancer therapy trials. The research shows that nonparticipation is influenced by physician and patient variables, as well as by characteristics of the specific protocols. Trials design, especially pre-existing treatment preferences, pose significant problems for physicians and patients. Intervention strategies have focused on alternate trial designs, improving the informed consent process, and increasing knowledge about trials. Additional research should focus on the perspectives of patients who accept and decline trial participation and on interventions designed to affect accrual. Future studies need to be sensitive to patient quality of life considerations as well as practical and ethical issues.     

Forschung: Ethische Normen angesichts medizinischer Forschung am Menschen

In the Helsinki Declaration, the World Medical Association lay down basic ethical norms for medical research on humans: the commitment to ensure informed consent of patients, to particularly safeguard vulnerable persons, to use a risk-benefit evaluation that meets human needs and a commitment to adhere to legal regulations and scientific standards. These norms function here as a basic ethical framework as they do not depend on certain ethical systems, cultural or ideological beliefs. Therefore, they offer the chance of finding consensus. The actual challenge here is not to justify once more how useful those norms are that are strongly tied to the concept of human dignity but to apply them to cases of ethical conflicts and thereby increase our understanding of them. In this paper the position of the Bioethics Convention will be defended, that research undertaken with vulnerable subjects is ethically permissible even if the benefits serve others, yet only if the involved risks are minimal. The aim is to prevent vulnerable persons from becoming therapeutic orphans.     

整形美容手术中知情同意的伦理探讨

目的 明确知情同意在整形美容行业中的必要性和重要性,探讨其中隐藏的伦理学意蕴,用知情同意这一重要的伦理原则规范医务人员的行为.方法 使用文献检索法、专家咨询法、抽样调查等方法对整形美容手术中的知情同意情况进行调查,分析实施过程中的规范化情况和遇到的难点和伦理困境.结果 整形美容医师牢牢把握了知情同意这一原则,作为术前常规工作执行,但在实际操作过程中还有些难点.结论 整形美容医生应规范履行知情告知义务,尊重患者的知情权;院方须制定一系列的制度来规范知情同意这一原则.     

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.     

Views of US researchers about informed consent in international collaborative research

Informed consent poses challenges in all settings. Challenges may be particularly great in international collaborative research, where cultural perspectives may differ, and where education levels and language may be barriers to participant understanding. We conducted a written survey and focus groups with US health researchers doing research in developing countries, asking about informed consent and other ethical issues in their research. We present here both qualitative and quantitative data relevant to informed consent. Qualitative data revealed that researchers' experiences and beliefs about informed consent fell into three paradigms: regulatory, community, and individual. The regulatory paradigm refers to researchers' views and practices relating to informed consent requirements of institutional review boards and other oversight bodies. The community paradigm refers to researchers' approach to the content and methodology of informed consent in the context of long-term relationships between research teams and study communities. Researchers emphasized the importance of these relationships for creating and maintaining communication fundamental to the informed consent process. Finally, the individual paradigm refers to researchers' views about individual participants' understanding and decision-making process regarding research. Researchers described community-level influences on participants' decision-making, but stressed the need for individual comprehension and voluntary participation. While these paradigms are distinct, they also are intertwined. Quantitative data supported the existence of these three paradigms in respondents' characterization of informed consent. Researchers frequently stated that legal language on the consent forms was meaningless (52%). Forty-four percent of researchers had consulted with community leaders, and 23% believed the consent process focuses too much on the individual, rather than on family or community. Most researchers (82%) reported that the consent process was an important means of educating participants about the study. Fifty-four percent of researchers believed participants did not understand placebos. Further research is needed to understand how culture and relationships affect research participation, and to provide information and dialogue among researchers, oversight bodies and community representatives about appropriate ways to approach informed consent in international research.