SUPPORT, a study involving approximately 1,300 premature infants who were randomly assigned to treatment protocols that differed in whether they offered higher or lower levels of oxygen saturation, was purportedly an example of comparative effectiveness research performed in the intensive care unit. However, SUPPORT became highly controversial. One source of controversy involved the proper determination of “reasonably foreseeable risks.” Commentators debated whether randomization to contrasting restrictive strategies that are within existing standard‐of‐care treatments imposed additional “reasonably foreseeable risks” greater than what (...) study participants would have received outside of the research. A second controversial issue had to do with disclosures in informed consent documents. This article explores these issues.We argue that randomization to contrasting restrictive interventions lying at the outer ends of “standard‐of‐care” practices differs in important ways from unrestricted “standard‐of‐care” practices available outside of a proposed study; that research involving such randomization might pose additional “reasonably foreseeable risks” from what occurs in “standard‐of‐care” practices; and that for trials whose study designs are similar to the SUPPORT study, respect for persons requires the disclosure of information about the nature of the experimental procedures and their risks. (shrink)

The medical profession has a tradition of presenting itself as exceptionally altruistic. This article challenges the idea that physicians are, or should be, more altruistic than other professionals or other people, and goes so far as to posit that even a professional aspiration of altruism can have negative consequences.

The AHP Code of Ethics requires members to serve the best interests of their clients, be clear and honest with them, and keep their secrets confidential. Members pledge to represent their skills and qualifications honestly and to make appropriate referrals to others more qualified when out of their depth.AHP stands for “Associated Hair Professionals,” or hair stylists, but their Code of Ethics looks a lot like the Hippocratic Oath and the current Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association. (...) All of these ethics statements emphasize honesty, confidentiality, competence, serving patients’ best interests, and willingness to refer to other qualified professionals. But it’s not just doctors and hair professionals who have Codes of Ethics. The SPCP — Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals —requires its members to “maintain high professional standards consistent with sound practices,” “conduct business relationships in a manner that is fair to all,” and avoid false or misleading statements to the effect that the application of permanent makeup is not tattooing, not permanent, and not painful. (shrink)

Lantos and Feudtner argue that SUPPORT was an instance of CER and that CER differs from research involving unproven, experimental therapies because it exposes research subjects to the same risks patients regularly face in clinical practice. Like many defenders of SUPPORT, they formally acknowledge the study as research but want it to be thought of as clinical care. They develop an appealing argument, but it is misleading. Whatever doctors might have done in clinical practice, their choice of target range within (...) the study and for study participants was influenced by research aims. Just as in research involving unproven, experimental therapies, the care of patients in SUPPORT was altered for the goal of obtaining knowledge to help future patients. (shrink)

This paper explains why informed consent for randomized comparative effectiveness research must include risks of standard care. Disclosures of such risks are both legally and ethically required and, for reasons discussed in the paper, should remain so.

This Essay examines the elegantly simple idea that consent to medical treatment or participation in human research must be “informed” to be valid. It does so by using as a case study the controversial clinical research trial known as the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial. The Essay begins by charting, through case law and the adoption of the common rule, the evolution of duties to secure fully informed consent in both research and treatment. The Essay then utilizes the (...) SUPPORT study, which sought to pinpoint the level of saturated oxygen that should be provided to extremely low birth weight infants to demonstrate modern complexities and shortcomings of the duty to secure informed consent. This Essay shows how the duty is measured by foreseeability of risks and benefits in human research and why federal regulators believed the tradeoffs in risk and benefits from differing oxygen levels administered in the support study were foreseeable. It then explores the contours of the duty to secure informed consent when applied to researchers who also serve as treating physicians, highlighting how common law duties differ in jurisdictions that apply the professional standard and those that apply the patient-centered material risk standard. This Essay provides new insight into what the law must do to make real the notion that [e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his body.”. (shrink)

ABSTRACTComparative effectiveness studies, referred to here as “usual-care” trials, seek to compare current medical practices for the same medical condition. Such studies are presumed to be safe and involve only minimal risks. However, that presumption may be flawed if the trial design contains “unusual” care, resulting in potential risks to subjects and inaccurately informed consent. Three case studies described here did not rely on clinical evidence to ascertain contemporaneous practice. As a result, the investigators drew inaccurate conclusions, misinformed research participants, (...) and subjects’ safety was compromised. Before approving usual-care protocols, IRBs and scientific review committees should evaluate the quality and completeness of information documenting usual-care practices. Guidance from governmental oversight agencies regarding evidence-based documentation of current clinical practice could prevent similar occurrences in future usual-care trials. Accurate information is necessary to ensure that trials comply with government regulations that require minimizing research risks to subjects and accurate informed consent documents. (shrink)

The Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT) has been the focal point of many different criticisms regarding the ethics of the study ever since publication of the trial's findings in 2010 and 2012. In this article, we focus on a concern that the technical design and implementation details of the study were ethically flawed. While the federal Office Human Research Protections focused on the consent form, rather than on the study design and implementation, OHRP's critiques of the consent (...) form reveal views about the study design and implementation that we believe are fundamentally flawed. These criticisms about the design and implementation of SUPPORT, if generalized, become relevant concerns about these aspects of many comparative effectiveness research studies.Our analytical approach will be to use SUPPORT as a prime example of comparative effectiveness research and show why it challenges some prevailing assumptions about the riskiness of research. We will address five aspects of the study design and implementation: 1) randomization, 2) treatment by protocol, 3) choice of endpoints, 4) lack of a “standard care” control group, and 5) the use of altered oximeters. Examining these aspects will allow us to answer two specific central questions. The first is a methodological question with ethical implications: was the study designed in such a way as to answer the primary study question? The second question is whether the study design added or decreased risk to the babies enrolled in the study compared to babies who were not in the study. (shrink)

There is a debate at the highest levels of government about how to classify the risks of research studies that evaluate therapies that are in widespread use. Should the risks of those therapies be considered as risks of research that is designed to evaluate those therapies? Or not? The Common Rule states, “In evaluating risks and benefits, the IRB should consider only those risks and benefits that may result from the research.” ). By contrast, the Office of Human Research Protections, (...) in a proposed “guidance” states, “The reasonably foreseeable risks of research include already-identified risks of the standards of care being evaluated as a purpose of the research.”.In this paper, I argue that the Common Rule got it right and OHRP got it wrong. When treatments are in widespread use, the risks of those treatments are ever-present for all patients. By enrolling in formal studies that use rigorous methods to compare one treatment with another and that carefully monitor outcomes and adverse events, patients are protected from the risks of idiosyncratic practice variation. Their risks are decreased, rather than increased.If OHRP's approach becomes the law of the land, patients will be misinformed about the relative risks of treatment and research in ways that undermine autonomy rather than promoting it and that make truly informed consent impossible. (shrink)