Volume 20, Issue 8, August 2020, Page 93-95.

A common assumption in the selection of nonhuman animal subjects for research and the approval of research is that, if the risks of a procedure are too great for humans, and if there is a so-called scientific necessity, then it is permissible to use nonhuman animal subjects. I reject the common assumption as neglecting the central ethical issue of the permissibility of using nonhuman animal subjects and as being inconsistent with the principle of justice used in human subjects research ethics. (...) This principle requires that certain classes of individuals not be subjected to a disproportionate share of the burdens or risks of research. I argue for an extension of this principle to nonhuman animal research and show that a prima facie violation of the principle occurs because nonhuman animals bear an overwhelmingly disproportionate share of the risks of research without sufficient justification or reciprocal benefit. (shrink)

Clinical emergencies necessitate immediate action to avert the danger to the patient's life or health. Emergency patients might be in greatest need of novel therapies, and even presumed willing to assume some risk, but research into emergency conditions should be conducted under commonly accepted principles that fulfil the scientific, ethical, and legal criteria. Such criteria already exist in the US, but are still under development in Europe.This article introduces criteria upon which trials in emergency settings may be ethically and legally (...) justified in Europe. Based on both legal texts and professional guidelines, the author has established seven conditions for emergency research, of which informed consent and its substitutes, as well as the conditions of direct benefit requirement and necessity, are considered most problematic and therefore analysed more closely. Other conditions include absence of alternative methods, scientific validity, and approval by an ethics committee. (shrink)

In order to discover an effective treatment for dementia it is necessary to include dementia patients in clinical research trials. Dementia patients face an increased risk to lose the capacity to consent to research participation, and research possibilities with incompetent participants are legally strictly limited. One solution is for patients to consent to research through an advance research directive whilst still competent. In order to explore whether such a directive would be useful and valuable in practice we conducted a qualitative (...) study. We explored the opinions and arguments of researchers in the field of dementia, aiming to map the possibilities and constraints of ARDs. It was argued that a positive ARD could be valuable to discuss research participation with proxies, and patients with a negative ARD will be excluded from research trials. However, it is argued that an ARD cannot replace the informed consent procedure, and in practice proxy dissent will overrule written consent. The practical use of these directives is thus limited, as most researchers will not comply with positive directives. (shrink)

BackgroundAdvance research directives (ARD) have been suggested as a means by which to facilitate research with incapacitated subjects, in particular in the context of dementia research. However, established disclosure requirements for study participation raise an ethical problem for the application of ARDs: While regular consent procedures call for detailed information on a specific study (“token disclosure”), ARDs can typically only include generic information (“type disclosure”). The introduction of ARDs could thus establish a double standard in the sense that within the (...) context of ARDs, type disclosure would be considered sufficient, while beyond this context, token disclosure would remain necessary.Main bodyThis paper provides an ethical analysis of ARDs, taking into account the results of numerous empirical studies that have been performed so far. It will be argued that a revised understanding of informed consent can allow for context-sensitive disclosure standards. As a consequence, ARDs that include type disclosure can be acceptable under suitable circumstances. Such an approach raises a number of objections. A thorough examination shows, however, that they are not sufficient to justify a rejection of the approach.ConclusionThe approach presented in this paper avoids introducing a double standard. It is, therefore, more suitable for the implementation of ARDs than established approaches. (shrink)

Im Zuge einer Änderung des Arzneimittelgesetzes im November 2016 hat der Deutsche Bundestag beschlossen, dass gruppennützige Arzneimittelforschung mit nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Erwachsenen unter bestimmten Bedingungen erlaubt sein soll. Das entsprechende Gesetz wird voraussichtlich im Jahr 2020 in Kraft treten. Das ethische Problem dieser Forschung besteht darin, dass Personen, die nicht in der Lage sind, ihre Einwilligung in die Forschung zu erteilen, nicht vom medizinischen Fortschritt ausgeschlossen werden sollen. Der Gesetzgeber hat versucht, diesen Konflikt zu lösen, indem er die Zulässigkeit der gruppennützigen Forschung (...) mit nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Erwachsenen an die Voraussetzung geknüpft hat, dass Studienteilnehmer ihre Einwilligung zuvor in einer Probandenverfügung erteilen. Der Beitrag hat das Ziel, die neue Regelung zur gruppennützigen Forschung mit nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Erwachsenen aus ethischer Sicht zu bewerten. Die Frage, ob die Gesetzesänderung weitere Forschung ermöglichen wird, hängt wesentlich davon ab, ob man mit Blick auf Studien, die sowohl eigennützige als auch gruppennützige Maßnahmen umfassen, eine Gesamtbetrachtung oder eine Einzelbetrachtung dieser Studien vorzieht. In unserem Beitrag argumentieren wir für eine Einzelbetrachtung. Es wird weiterhin die Auffassung vertreten, dass die im Gesetzgebungsverfahren vorgeschlagene Probandenverfügung die Selbstbestimmung der Patienten fördern kann, wenn sie mit Blick auf die mit der Teilnahme verbundenen Eingriffe ein Mindestmaß an Bestimmtheit erreicht.Zusammenfassend wird die Auffassung vertreten, dass gruppennützige Forschung mit nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Erwachsenen trotz der genannten Bedenken unter bestimmten Bedingungen ethisch zulässig sein kann. In der Gesamtabwägung erscheint dabei die eindeutige Definition und strenge Beachtung der Bedingungen der EU-Verordnung 536/2014 mit Blick auf einen ethisch gerechtfertigten Einbezug von nicht-einwilligungsfähigen Erwachsenen in gruppennützige Forschung als besonders bedeutsam. (shrink)

The fourth amendment to the German Medicinal Products Act (Arzneimittelgesetz) states that nontherapeutic research in incompetent populations is permissible under the condition that potential research participants expressly declare their wish to participate in scientific research in an advance research directive. This article explores the implementation of advance research directives in Germany against the background of the international legal and ethical framework for biomedical research. In particular, it addresses a practical problem that arises from the disclosure requirement for advance research directives. (...) We show that, if the disclosure standard for advance research directives is set at a token level, nontherapeutic research in incompetent populations becomes practically impossible. To resolve this issue, we suggest the disclosure standard be set at a type level. (shrink)