Despite intense academic debate in the recent past over the use of ‘sham surgery’ control groups in research, there has been a recent resurgence in their use in the field of neurodegenerative disease. Yet the primacy of ethical arguments in favour of sham surgery controls is not yet established. Preliminary empirical research shows an asymmetry between the views of neurosurgical researchers and patients on the subject, while different ethical guidelines and regulations support conflicting interpretations. Research ethics committees faced with a (...) proposal involving sham surgery should be aware of its ethical complexities. An overview of recent and current placebo-controlled surgical trials in the field of Parkinson's Disease is provided here, followed by an analysis of the key ethical issues which such trials raise. (shrink)

Although Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use does not contain an exception for emergency situations, and requires the informed consent of a legal representative in all cases where research is conducted on legally competent individuals who are unable to give (...) informed consent, in Poland, emergency research can be conducted without consent. Polish regulations on emergency research can hardly be treated as a result of intentional legislative policy. Our provisions arise from multiple and sophisticated interpretations of different regulations that govern medical experiments on human subjects and clinical trials. These interpretations can be summarized as follows: There are two categories of medical experiments: therapeutic and non-therapeutic experiments. Emergency research without consent may be conducted in the category of therapeutic experiment only.. Emergency research may be conducted without consent if there is a situation of great urgency in which the research subject’s life is in danger and there is no possibility of obtaining immediate consent from the research subject him or herself, or from his or her legal representative or guardianship court, and the research subject has not refused to give consent for the participation in an emergency therapeutic experiment. The legal representative or guardianship court shall be provided with all the relevant information concerning subject’s participation in an experiment as soon as possible. All projects of emergency research with intent to be done without the research subject’s consent must be approved by an independent bioethics committee. Because these five requirements seem to provide insufficient protection for a subject’s autonomy and rights it is necessary to add to them two other conditions: the emergency research could not be conducted using other research participants capable of giving informed consent; and informed consent for continued participation in the emergency research shall be obtained from either the participant him or herself or the legally authorized representative as soon as possible. A consolidated single Act that will govern all aspects of medical experiments on human subjects, including emergency research, should be prepared and enacted as soon as possible. (shrink)

This paper investigates the value of trust and the proper attitude lay people ought to have towards scientific experts. Trust in expertise is usually considered to be valuable, while distrust is often analyzed in cases where it is harmful. I will draw on accounts from political philosophy and argue that it is not only public trust that is valuable when it comes to scientific expertise – but also public vigilance. Expertise may be distorted in different ways, which cannot be remedied (...) by internal control mechanisms alone. This reveals the importance of some forms of democratic oversight. The proper attitude is vigilant trust in expertise. However, vigilant trust seems to be a contradictory notion: How can one be trusting and watchful at the same time? I will show that it is not, and that trust and vigilance can be compatible to a certain extent. I will do so by distinguishing between different levels of both trust and vigilance. Interestingly, this argument requires acknowledging the value of some forms of distrust in scientific expertise, even if that distrust targets trustworthy experts. (shrink)

In contrast to most publications on the ethics of paying research subjects, which start by identifying and analyzing major ethical concerns raised by the practice (in particular, risks of undue inducement and exploitation) and end with a set of—more or less well-justified—ethical recommendations for using payment schemes immune to these problems, this paper offers a systematic, principle-based ethical analysis of the practice. It argues that researchers have aprima faciemoral obligation to offer payment to research subjects, which stems from the principle (...) of social beneficence. This principle constitutes an ethical “spine” of the practice. Other ethical principles of research ethics (respect for autonomy, individual beneficence, and justice/fairness) make up an ethical “skeleton” of morally sound payment schemes by providing additional moral reasons for offering participants (1) recompense for reasonable expenses; and (2a) remuneration conceptualized as a reward for their valuable contribution, provided (i) it meets standards of equality, adequacy and non-exploitation, and (ii) it is not overly attractive (i.e., it does not constitute undue inducement for participation or retention, and does not encourage deceptive behaviors); or (2b) remuneration conceptualized as a market-driven price, provided (i) it is necessary and designed to help the study achieve its social and scientific goals, (ii) it does not reinforce wider social injustices and inequalities; (iii) it meets the requirement of non-exploitation; and (iv) it is not overly attractive. The principle of justice provides a strong ethical reason for not offering recompenses for lost wages (or loss of other reasonably expected profits). (shrink)

Background Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients’ autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the (...) non-digital Informed Consent process. Methods We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio–video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia. Results Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia, non-interactive multimedia, and videos, and most studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures and clinical research. For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes. Conclusions Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact. (shrink)

One of the fundamental ethical concerns about biomedical research is that it frequently exposes participants to risks for the benefit of others. To protect participants’ rights and interests in this context, research regulations and guidelines set out a mix of substantive and procedural requirements for research involving humans. Risk thresholds play an important role in formulating both types of requirements. First, risk thresholds serve to set upper risk limits in certain types of research. Second, risk thresholds serve to demarcate risk (...) categories that streamline risk-adapted systems of ethical oversight. But although risk thresholds play such an important role in research governance, there is a need both to better define the existing risk thresholds and to delineate new thresholds in order to develop more risk-adapted systems of research oversight. The present paper examines the existing minimal risk threshold and the surrounding debates with the goal of deriving a systematic approach to setting thresholds of research risk. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungMit der Vielzahl von Daten aus genetischen Untersuchungsverfahren wächst das Problem von „Zufallsbefunden“, d. h. von zufällig erhobenen Nebenbefunden, die mit der ursprünglichen Fragestellung nicht in Verbindung stehen und dennoch eine Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Reproduktionsverhalten der untersuchten Person selbst oder ihrer Anverwandten haben. In Ermangelung nationaler oder internationaler Richtlinien greifen die Autoren die aktuelle Diskussion um den Umgang mit genetischen Zufallsbefunden in Behandlungs- und Forschungskontext auf. Dabei nehmen sie auf die für Deutschland relevanten rechtlichen und ethischen Rahmenbedingungen Bezug. Nach (...) Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG) muss in Deutschland im Rahmen eines Behandlungsvertrages auf die Möglichkeit von Zufallsbefunden hingewiesen werden. Es ist Bestandteil der Aufklärung und Einwilligung, inwieweit Zufallsbefunde mitgeteilt werden, wobei das Recht auf Nichtwissen und der Schutz nicht-einwilligungsfähiger Personen berücksichtigt werden müssen. Im Forschungskontext greift das GenDG nicht, aber auch hier sollte über mögliche Zufallsbefunde aufgeklärt werden, wenngleich eine Rückmeldung nicht zwingend, aber bei Befunden mit hohem klinischen Nutzen ethisch geboten sein kann. Folgende Aspekte sind im Umgang mit Zufallsbefunden zu berücksichtigen: 1) Art und Umfang der Aufklärung und Einwilligung bei einer unüberschaubaren Zahl von möglichen Befunden. 2) Einordnung der klinischen Bedeutung einer genetischen Veränderung im Sinne von gesichertem, wahrscheinlichem, möglichem oder fraglichem/unbekanntem klinischen Nutzen. 3) Prozessierung des Informationsrückflusses für Gegenwart und Zukunft. 4) Ressourcenplanung im Hinblick auf die klinische Validierung, die Erläuterung von Befunden und den Transfer in die klinische Praxis. Im Umgang mit genetischen Zufallsbefunden besteht erheblicher empirisch-ethischer Forschungs- und politischer Regelungsbedarf. Zeitgleich ist es unabdingbar, die Wahrnehmung und das Verständnis der untersuchten Personen sowie die Grundhaltung gegenüber Zufallsbefunden im Rahmen von Studien zu beleuchten und entsprechende Bildungs- und Kommunikationswerkzeuge zu entwickeln. (shrink)

Die ethischen Aspekte der Verwendung von Placebos in klinischen Versuchsreihen wurden im letzten Jahrzehnt ausführlich und kontrovers diskutiert. Es fehlt dennoch eine gründliche vergleichende Analyse der verschiedenen internationalen Richtlinien, ihrer Terminologien und ihrer auf Placebo bezogenen Prinzipien. Das zentrale Problem ist die Rechtfertigung von Placebo bei einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Alle aktuellen Versionen der untersuchten Richtlinien schlagen solche Rechtfertigungen vor, unterscheiden sich hierbei jedoch beträchtlich. Zunächst werden wir ein formales allgemeines Prinzip herausarbeiten. Dann werden wir drei verschiedene Kategorien von Kriterien (...) darstellen: das Schadensrisiko oder die Belastung, zwingende wissenschaftliche Gründe und die Erhältlichkeit einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Die Analyse zeigt bedeutende normative Abweichungen und Widersprüche innerhalb und zwischen den einzelnen Richtlinien. Besonders frappierend ist es, dassmancheRichtlinien es erlauben, Versuchsteilnehmer dem Risiko eines schweren Schadens auszusetzen, während andere gerade dies untersagen. Abschließend versuchen wir zu zeigen, wie sich die normativen Unterschiede bei der Entscheidungsfindung von Forschern und Ethikkommissionen auswirken können. (shrink)

Some people might argue that there are already too many different documents, guidelines, and regulations in bioethics. Some overlap w.

This paper targets an orphan topic in research ethics, namely the so called principle of the primacy of the human being, which states that the interests of the human subject should always take precedence over the interests of science and society. Although the principle occupies the central position in the majority of international ethical and legal standards for biomedical research, it has been commented in the literature mainly in passing. With a few notable exceptions, there is little in-depth discussion about (...) the meaning and role of the principle. Several authors note that the principle is vogue, ambiguous and apparently conflicting with the accepted practice of conducting non-beneficial research on individuals unable to give consent. There are opinions that it is just “a vacuous figure of speech” and should be abandoned. This paper argues that the primacy principle is far from being “a vacuous figure of speech”, rather it should be seen as a threefold concept: a fundamental interpretative rule, a procedural rule, and a substantive rule aimed at protecting research subjects from instrumental treatment and unacceptable risks. This interpretation tracks back to the principle regulatory and normative origins in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, but also acknowledges changes in research ethics and practice, which took place at the turn on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Thus, the proposed reading of the principle is not only original, but also historically grounded and normatively fruitful. It provides a fresh and ethically rich perspective on extensively debated, but still controversial problem of an upper limit of permissible risks in non-beneficial studies. (shrink)

Here we identify approximately 40,000 healthy human volunteers who were intentionally exposed to infectious pathogens in clinical research studies dating from late World War II to the early 2000s. Microbial challenge experiments continue today under contemporary human subject research requirements. In fact, we estimated 4,000 additional volunteers who were experimentally infected between 2010 and the present day. We examine the risks and benefits of these experiments and present areas for improvement in protections of participants with respect to safety. These are (...) the absence of maximum limits to risk and the potential for institutional review boards to include questionable benefits to subjects and society when weighing the risks and benefits of research protocols. The lack of a duty of medical care by physician–investigators to research subjects is likewise of concern. The transparency of microbial challenge experiments and the safety concerns raised in this work may stimulate further dialogue on the risks to participants of human experimentation. (shrink)

BackgroundIn research ethics, the most basic question would always be, “which is an ethical issue, which is not?” Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus. In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that.MethodsWe extracted (...) the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative.ResultsWe found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2 % of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus. Of the 12 clusters, Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least.ConclusionThere was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences. (shrink)

Non-beneficial paediatric research is vital to improving paediatric healthcare. Nevertheless, it is also ethically controversial. By definition, subjects of such studies are unable to give consent and they are exposed to risks only for the benefit of others, without obtaining any clinical benefits which could compensate those risks. This raises ethical concern that children participating in non-beneficial research are treated instrumentally; that they are reduced to mere instruments for the benefit of science and society. But this would make the research (...) incompatible with the widely endorsed principle of the primacy of the human subject, which stipulates that the interests of the participating individual should prevail over the interests of science and society. This paper deals with this conflict. It analyses solutions to this problem developed in the literature, and shows that they are unsuccessful. Finally, it offers a new idea of how to reconcile the conduct of non-beneficial paediatric research with the PP. The paper argues for a new formula of the PP, and shows that it implies a specific non-comparative definition of the minimal risk threshold. (shrink)

Mit der Vielzahl von Daten aus genetischen Untersuchungsverfahren wächst das Problem von „Zufallsbefunden“, d. h. von zufällig erhobenen Nebenbefunden, die mit der ursprünglichen Fragestellung nicht in Verbindung stehen und dennoch eine Bedeutung für Gesundheit und Reproduktionsverhalten der untersuchten Person selbst oder ihrer Anverwandten haben. In Ermangelung nationaler oder internationaler Richtlinien greifen die Autoren die aktuelle Diskussion um den Umgang mit genetischen Zufallsbefunden in Behandlungs- und Forschungskontext auf. Dabei nehmen sie auf die für Deutschland relevanten rechtlichen und ethischen Rahmenbedingungen Bezug. Nach (...) Gendiagnostikgesetz (GenDG) muss in Deutschland im Rahmen eines Behandlungsvertrages auf die Möglichkeit von Zufallsbefunden hingewiesen werden. Es ist Bestandteil der Aufklärung und Einwilligung, inwieweit Zufallsbefunde mitgeteilt werden, wobei das Recht auf Nichtwissen und der Schutz nicht-einwilligungsfähiger Personen berücksichtigt werden müssen. Im Forschungskontext greift das GenDG nicht, aber auch hier sollte über mögliche Zufallsbefunde aufgeklärt werden, wenngleich eine Rückmeldung nicht zwingend, aber bei Befunden mit hohem klinischen Nutzen ethisch geboten sein kann. Folgende Aspekte sind im Umgang mit Zufallsbefunden zu berücksichtigen: 1) Art und Umfang der Aufklärung und Einwilligung bei einer unüberschaubaren Zahl von möglichen Befunden. 2) Einordnung der klinischen Bedeutung einer genetischen Veränderung im Sinne von gesichertem, wahrscheinlichem, möglichem oder fraglichem/unbekanntem klinischen Nutzen. 3) Prozessierung des Informationsrückflusses für Gegenwart und Zukunft. 4) Ressourcenplanung im Hinblick auf die klinische Validierung, die Erläuterung von Befunden und den Transfer in die klinische Praxis. Im Umgang mit genetischen Zufallsbefunden besteht erheblicher empirisch-ethischer Forschungs- und politischer Regelungsbedarf. Zeitgleich ist es unabdingbar, die Wahrnehmung und das Verständnis der untersuchten Personen sowie die Grundhaltung gegenüber Zufallsbefunden im Rahmen von Studien zu beleuchten und entsprechende Bildungs- und Kommunikationswerkzeuge zu entwickeln. (shrink)

Die ethischen Aspekte der Verwendung von Placebos in klinischen Versuchsreihen wurden im letzten Jahrzehnt ausführlich und kontrovers diskutiert. Es fehlt dennoch eine gründliche vergleichende Analyse der verschiedenen internationalen Richtlinien, ihrer Terminologien und ihrer auf Placebo bezogenen Prinzipien. Das zentrale Problem ist die Rechtfertigung von Placebo bei einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Alle aktuellen Versionen der untersuchten Richtlinien schlagen solche Rechtfertigungen vor, unterscheiden sich hierbei jedoch beträchtlich. Zunächst werden wir ein formales allgemeines Prinzip herausarbeiten. Dann werden wir drei verschiedene Kategorien von Kriterien (...) darstellen: das Schadensrisiko oder die Belastung, zwingende wissenschaftliche Gründe und die Erhältlichkeit einer nachgewiesen wirksamen Therapie. Die Analyse zeigt bedeutende normative Abweichungen und Widersprüche innerhalb und zwischen den einzelnen Richtlinien. Besonders frappierend ist es, dassmancheRichtlinien es erlauben, Versuchsteilnehmer dem Risiko eines schweren Schadens auszusetzen, während andere gerade dies untersagen. Abschließend versuchen wir zu zeigen, wie sich die normativen Unterschiede bei der Entscheidungsfindung von Forschern und Ethikkommissionen auswirken können. (shrink)

The European framework surrounding clinical trials on medicinal products for human use is going to change as demonstrated by the large debate at European institutional level. One of the major challenges is to overcome the lack of harmonisation of clinical trial procedures among countries. This aspect is gaining more and more importance, considering the increasing number of multicentre and multinational studies. In this work, the actual European rules governing the Clinical Trial Application have been analysed throughout the different steps including (...) the registration of the trial in the European database; the preparation of documents to be submitted and their contents; the preparation of documents related to the information and consent process; the submission to competent bodies. Specific issues related to paediatric research and trials involving non EU/EEA countries have been addressed as well. Results reveal that the European legislation offers a well defined set of European rules covering different aspects of a Clinical Trial Application. However, these are not suitable to meet the challenges from multicentre and multinational clinical studies. A stronger set of rules, such as is available in a composite European Regulation has been adopted and is expected to harmonise practices and enable sponsors to carry out well conducted trials. But will the new regulation overcome the existing criticisms of Directive 2001/20/EC? (shrink)

Alzheimer’s disease is a very common, progressive and still incurable disease. Future possibilities for its cure lie in the promotion of research that will increase our knowledge of the disorder’s causes and lead to the discovery of effective remedies. Such research will necessarily involve individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. This raises the controversial issue of whether patients with Alzheimer’s disease are competent to give their consent for research participation.

Recent progress in synthetic biology has enabled the development of novel therapeutic opportunities for the treatment of human disease. In the near future, first-in-human trials will be indicated. FIH trials mark a key milestone in the translation of medical SynBio applications into clinical practice. Fostered by uncertainty of possible adverse events for trial participants, a variety of ethical concerns emerge with regards to SynBio FIH trials, including ‘risk’ minimization. These concerns are associated with any FIH trial, however, due to the (...) novelty of the approach, they become more pronounced for medical applications of emerging technologies like SynBio. To minimize potential harm for trial participants, scholars, guidelines, regulations and policy makers alike suggest using ‘risk assessment’ as evaluation tool for such trials. Conversely, in the context of emTech FIH trials, we believe it to be at least questionable to contextualize uncertainty of potential adverse events as ‘risk’ and apply traditional risk assessment methods. Hence, this issue needs to be discussed to enable alterations of the evaluation process before the translational phase of SynBio applications begins. In this paper, we will take the opportunity to start the debate and highlight how a misunderstanding of the concept of risk, and the possibilities and limitations of risk assessment, respectively, might impair decision-making by the relevant regulatory authorities and research ethics committees, and discuss possible solutions to tackle the issue. (shrink)

Paediatric genomic research raises particularly challenging questions on whether and under what circumstances to return research results. In the paediatric context, decision-making is guided by the best interests of the child framework, as enshrined in the 1989 international Convention on the Rights of the Child. According to this Convention, rights and responsibilities are shared between children, parents, researchers, and the state. These "relational" obligations are further complicated in the context of genetic research.

The paper concerns the uncertainty in current propositions for the regulation of tissue donation. It focuses mainly on two statements issued in Germany. The scope of the paper is to give a systematic approach to ethical problems coming up in this field. Both statements try to maintain the idea of positive autonomy in regard to tissue donation, but their attempt eventually is forced to fail. Different procedures are proposed that most often are not practicable (because a truly “informed” consent is (...) impossible, or because optional models tend to overwhelm donors). Blanket consent is also proposed, but this form of consent cannot be seen as an expression of self-determination. Under the pretence of autonomy, donors are left alone with the task to control scientific research and to have their personal and property rights respected. Following this rather weak position of autonomy, in one statement there is a clear tendency to place the intrinsic value of research over the autonomy of the donor. In order to avoid this conclusion, autonomy has to be more than individual decision making. It has to be embedded in social and institutional rules which support and protect individual choice. If the benefits of research are supposed to lead to a common good and to satisfy public interests, then research has to be controlled through public institutions. Autonomy does not exclude institutional support, as institutional support is the only way to take the autonomy of donors seriously. (shrink)

BackgroundCountries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.DiscussionResearch ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs (...) can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices.The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.ConclusionOutcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed? (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper reports on a multidisciplinary meeting held to discuss ethical issues in medical research in the developing world. Many studies, including clinical trials, are conducted in developing countries with a high burden of disease. Conditions under which this research is conducted vary because of differences in culture, public health, political, legal and social contexts specific to these countries. Research practices, including standards of care for participants, may vary as a result. It is therefore not surprising that ethical issues (...) emerge. This meeting sought to identify and discuss these issues from the perspectives of the many actors in such research, including community representatives, with a view to finding ethical and pragmatic solutions to these issues. Dialogue between these actors was also promoted, with a view to identifying the need to develop such dialogue in future. Drawing from the experiences of the speakers, the colloquium attempted to outline some answers to several key questions characterising the field today. Experiences related to epidemiologic research, vaccine trials, drug trials, diagnostic tests and to some fundamental ethical issues in health research. Speakers were from different countries, disciplines and professions. The meeting provided a forum for consultation and debate between different ethics actors. Both encouraging findings and challenges emerged. (shrink)

It has become evident that neuroimaging raises new normative questions that cannot be addressed adequately within the (in this regard unspecific) frameworks of existing research ethics. Questions that are especially troubling are, among others, provoked by incidental findings. Two questions are particularly intricate in view of incidental findings: (1) How can the research subject’s right not to know be guaranteed? And (2) should a diagnostic check of scans by a neuroradiologist become an obligatory part of neuroscientific research protocols? The present (...) paper examines these question against the background of two recent recommendations. The differentiation between difference position and similarity position serves as an analytic tool to further investigate the issue and to develop a distinct proposal for answering the questions. (shrink)

Biomedical research involving human subjects is an arena of conflicts of interests. One of the most important conflicts is between interests of participants and interests of future patients. Legal regulations and ethical guidelines are instruments designed to help find a fair balance between risks and burdens taken by research subjects and development of knowledge and new treatment. There is an universally accepted ethical principle, which states that it is not ethically allowed to sacrifice individual interests for the sake of society (...) and science. This is the principle of precedence of individual. But there is a problem with how to interpret the principle of precedence of individual in the context of research without prospect of future benefit involving children. There are proposals trying to reconcile non-beneficial research involving children with the concept of the best interests. We assert that this reconciliation is flawed and propose an interpretation of the principle of precedence of individual as follows: not all, but only the most important interests of participants, must be guaranteed; this principle should be interpreted as the secure participant standard. In consequence, the issue of permissible risk ceiling becomes ethically crucial in research with incompetent subjects. (shrink)

Research on incompetent humans raises ethical challenges, especially when there is no direct benefit to these research subjects. Contemporary codes of research ethics typically require that such research must specifically serve to benefit the population to which the research subjects belong. The article critically examines this “same-population condition”, raising issues of both interpretation and moral justification. Of particular concern is the risk that the way in which the condition is articulated and rationalized in effect disguises or downplays the instrumentalization of (...) incompetent individuals. (shrink)

Genomic research may uncover results that have direct actionable benefit to the individual. An emerging debate is the degree to which researchers may have responsibility to offer results to the biological relatives of the research participant. In a companion study to one carried out in the United States, we describe the attitudes of Canadian Research Ethics Board chairs to this issue and their opinions as to the role of the REB in developing related policy.

Arguments against the possible use of genetic test results in private health and life insurance predominantly refer to the problem of certain gene carriers failing to obtain affordable insurance cover. However, some moral intuitions speaking against this practice seem to be more fundamental than mere concerns about adverse distributional effects. In their perspective, the central ethical problem is not that some people might fail to get insurance cover because of their ‘bad genes’, but rather that some people would manage to (...) get insurance cover because of their ‘good genes’. This paper tries to highlight the ethical background of these intuitions. Their guiding idea appears to be that, by pointing to his favourable test results, a customer might make an attempt to ‘sell his body’. The rationale of this concept is developed and its applicability to the case at issue is critically investigated. The aim is to clarify an essential objection against the use of genetic information in private insurance which has not yet been openly addressed in the academic debate of the topic. (shrink)

Objectives To evaluate whether the requirement of “minimal risk and burden” for paediatric research without direct benefit to the subjects compromises the ability to obtain data necessary for improving paediatric care. To provide evidence-based reflections on the EU recommendation that allows for a higher level of risk. Design and setting Systematic analysis of the approval/rejection decisions made by the Dutch Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects (CCMO). Review methods The analysis included 165 proposals for paediatric research without direct benefit (...) that were reviewed by the CCMO between January, 2000, and July, 2007. A separate, in-depth analysis of all drug studies included 18 early phase drug studies and nine other drug studies without direct benefit. Results 11 out of 165 studies were definitively rejected because the CCMO did not regard the risk and/or burden to be minimal. In three of these 11 cases (including two early phase drug studies) the requirement of minimal risk and burden was cited as the only reason for rejection. Four other early phase drug studies also involved risks and/or burdens that were not regarded to be minimal but were nevertheless approved. Conclusions The requirement of minimal risk and burden, aiming to protect research subjects, occasionally leads to rejection of protocols. Early phase drug studies relatively often do not comply with the requirement. Committees may find ways to approve important studies that formally should be rejected, but that is not a desirable solution. The regulatory framework should be revised to make such occasional exceptions to the requirement legitimate and transparent. (shrink)

BackgroundMany of the important elements of a valid informed consent – comprehension, voluntariness, and capacity – can be compromised or unmet in the context of psychiatric research. The inability to protect their own interests puts mentally ill subjects at an increased likelihood of being wronged or harmed and makes them particularly vulnerable in the context of clinical research. Therefore, they are due extra protection. Sometimes, these additional safeguards can significantly limit the possibilities for research involving subjects deemed unable to consent (...) due to their mental illness. Montenegro, a middle-income country in Southern-Eastern Europe, goes so far in their policy to protect these subjects from harms of research, as to ban all biomedical research on mentally ill persons who are unable to provide consent.Main bodyMental health research is often neglected and very low on the list of health research priorities, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the fact that mental health disorders are among leading causes of disability, the need for evidence-based services and interventions for those affected remains unmet.To exclude all members of a certain group of subjects seems extremely restrictive and unnecessary. Such a policy is discriminatory and unethical, because it inflicts further harms and exclusion of those patients from participation in society. This unjust exclusion policy obstructs research of certain psychiatric disorders and implies that new treatments for conditions that directly affect these incapacitated subjects will not be developed.ConclusionsScientific and clinical development must not be precluded by overly restrictive, discriminatory and unjust practices, such as the normative ban on research on decisionally-impaired mentally ill subjects. Rather, there should be a regulative framework that ensures that those who cannot consent for themselves are respected and protected in research, the anticipated benefits maximized, risks minimized, their autonomy recognized and extended. These patient-subjects must be appropriately included unless there is a clear and compelling rationale and justification that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the participants or the purpose of the research. (shrink)