Research is crucial to advancing knowledge about dementia, yet the burden of the disease currently outpaces research activity. Research often excludes people with dementia and other cognitive impairments because researchers and ethics committees are concerned about issues related to capacity, consent, and substitute decision-making. In Australia, participation in research by people with cognitive impairment is governed by a national ethics statement and a patchwork of state and territorial laws that have widely varying rules. We contend that this legislative variation precludes (...) a consistent approach to research governance and participation and hinders research that seeks to include people with impaired capacity. In this paper, we present key ethical principles, provide a comprehensive review of applicable legal rules in Australian states and territories, and highlight significant differences and ambiguities. Our analysis includes recommendations for reform to improve clarity and consistency in the law and reduce barriers that may exclude persons with dementia from participating in ethically approved research. Our recommendations seek to advance the national decision-making principles recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which emphasize the rights of all adults to make their own decisions and for those with impaired capacity to have access to appropriate supports to help them make decisions that affect their lives. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to show the importance of moral sensitivity when including persons with dementia in research. The article presents and discusses ethical challenges encountered when a total of 15 persons with dementia from two nursing homes and seven proxies were included in a qualitative study. The examples show that the ethical challenges may be unpredictable. As researchers, you participate with the informants in their daily life and in the interviews, and it is not possible to plan (...) all that may happen during the research. A procedural proposal to an ethical committee at the beginning of a research project based on traditional research ethical principles may serve as a guideline, but it cannot solve all the ethical problems one faces during the research process. Our main argument in this article is, therefore, that moral sensitivity is required in addition to the traditional research ethical principles throughout the whole process of observing and interviewing the respondents. (shrink)

Specifying the moral demands of respect for the autonomy of people with dementia (PWD) in nursing homes (NHs) remains a challenging conceptual task. These challenges arise primarily because received notions of autonomous decision-making and informed consent do not straightforwardly apply to PWD in NHs. In this paper, I investigate whether, and to what extent, the influential account of autonomous decision-making and informed consent proposed by Beauchamp and Childress has applicability and relevance to PWD in NHs. Despite its otherwise practical orientation (...) and suitability for acute care settings, I identify three problems with this account when applied to PWD in NHs. These problems include (1) intentionality as an all-or-nothing condition of autonomous decision-making, (2) construing consent as one-off authorization, and (3) unresolved ambiguities around the primacy of precedent autonomy over best interest considerations. To address these problems, I propose and defend a number of revisions to Beauchamp and Childress’s account. First, I suggest that we consider intentionality as a non-binary criterion of autonomous decision-making. Second, I argue for a model of process consent to overcome the moral inadequacy of construing consent as one-off authorization in NHs. And, to overcome the third problem, I suggest accounting for both precedent and extant autonomy of PWD, considering mandates of precedent autonomy not as prescriptive but as informative, and drawing a less rigid distinction between autonomy considerations and best interest judgements. I conclude that this revised version of Beauchamp and Childress’s account fares better than the original version in capturing relevant autonomy considerations to care for PWD in NHs. (shrink)

BackgroundEvaluation of decision-making capacity to consent to medical treatment has proved to be difficult in patients with dementia. Studies showed that physicians are often insufficiently trained in the evaluation of decision-making capacity. In this study, we present findings from a secondary analysis of a qualitative interviews with physicians. These interviews were initially used to assess usability of an instrument for the evaluation of decision-making capacity. By looking at difficult cases of decision-making capacity evaluation in patients with dementia, we provide recommendations (...) for such evaluations in clinical practice.MethodsWe used thematic coding to analyse physicians’ narratives of problematic decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia to uncover challenging issues of decision-making capacity evaluation.ResultsIn this study, decision-making capacity evaluations in patients with dementia were mainly perceived as challenging when they pertained to treatment refusals and treatment unrelated circumstances, such as psychiatric consultation, advance directives, and new living arrangements. Furthermore, the physicians reported training needs regarding situation-independent challenges with decision-making capacity evaluation.ConclusionsUpon further examining self-reported training needs and challenging cases, we have developed recommendations to improve decision-making capacity evaluations in clinical practice. In these recommendations, we argue that being able to evaluate decision-making capacity is an integral part of the informed consent process. (shrink)

Background and Objectives People living with dementia have historically been excluded from qualitative research and their voices ignored due to the perception that a person with dementia is not able to express their opinions, preferences and feelings. Research institutions and organizations have contributed by adopting a paternalistic posture of overprotection. Furthermore, traditional research methods have proven to be exclusionary towards this group. The objective of this paper is to address the issue of inclusion of people with dementia in research and (...) provide an evidence-based framework for dementia researchers based on the five principles of human rights: Participation, Accountability, Non-discrimination and equality, Empowerment and Legality (PANEL). Design This paper adapts the PANEL principles to the research context, and uses evidence from the literature to create a framework for qualitative research in people with dementia. This new framework aims to guide dementia researchers in designing studies around the needs of people with dementia, to improve involvement and participation, facilitate research development and maximize research outcomes. Results A checklist is presented with questions related to the five PANEL principles. These questions cover ethical, methodological and legal issues that researchers may need to consider while developing qualitative research for people with dementia. Conclusions The proposed checklist offers a series of questions and considerations to facilitate the development of qualitative research in patients with dementia. It is inspired by current human rights work of recognized dementia researchers and organizations who have been directly involved in policy development. Future studies need to explore its utility in improving participation, facilitating ethics approvals and ensuring that outcomes are relevant to people with dementia. (shrink)

Assent to medical research or treatment may be an intuitively attractive way to address the area between incapacity and capacity that might otherwise be subject to a best interests assessment. Assent has become a widely disseminated concept in law, research, and clinical ethics, but little conceptual work on assent has so far occurred. An exploration of use of assent in treatment and research in children and people with dementia suggests that at least five claims are made on behalf of assent. (...) Since at least some of these may lead to tensions with others, assent requires firmer conceptual underpinning. Whether assent remains primarily a local approach to research in children in the United States, where it appears to fit with legal background conditions, or develops its promise to overturn the dominant, binary, approach to (in)capacity will depend on the strength of future philosophical work to improve the theoretical foundations to assent. (shrink)

This article is based on a qualitative longitudinal study that followed the subjective experiences of both people living with dementia and their family members during the early stages of the illness. The purpose of this article is to describe and reflect on the ethical and methodological issues that occurred during data collection. The article focuses on the situation of the person with dementia and the family member and the role of the researcher when conducting the research interviews. Based on the (...) results of this study, conducting research interviews with people with dementia and their family members poses several ethical and methodological challenges that must be addressed. In doing so, ethically sound dementia-specific research methods will be actively developed enhancing our understanding of living with dementia and providing new insights into the care of people with dementia and their family members. (shrink)

Background Research is fundamental to improving the quality of health care. The need for regulation of research is clear. However, the bureaucratic complexity of research governance has raised concerns that the regulatory mechanisms intended to protect participants now threaten to undermine or stifle the research enterprise, especially as this relates to sensitive topics and hard to reach groups. Discussion Much criticism of research governance has focused on long delays in obtaining ethical approvals, restrictions imposed on study conduct, and the inappropriateness (...) of evaluating qualitative studies within the methodological and risk assessment frameworks applied to biomedical and clinical research. Less attention has been given to the different epistemologies underlying biomedical and qualitative investigation. The bioethical framework underpinning current regulatory structures is fundamentally at odds with the practice of emergent, negotiated micro-ethics required in qualitative research. The complex and shifting nature of real world settings delivers unanticipated ethical issues and (occasionally) genuine dilemmas which go beyond easy or formulaic ‘procedural’ resolution. This is not to say that qualitative studies are ‘unethical’ but that their ethical nature can only be safeguarded through the practice of ‘micro-ethics’ based on the judgement and integrity of researchers in the field. Summary This paper considers the implications of contrasting ethical paradigms for the conduct of qualitative research and the value of ‘empirical ethics’ as a means of liberating qualitative (and other) research from an outmoded and unduly restrictive research governance framework based on abstract prinicipalism, divorced from real world contexts and values. (shrink)

People in extraordinary situations are vulnerable. As research participants, they are additionally threatened by abuse or exploitation and the possibility of harm through research. To protect people against these threats, informed consent as an instrument of self-determination has been introduced. Self-determination requires autonomous persons, who voluntarily make decisions based on their values and morals. However, in nursing research, this requirement cannot always be met. Advanced age, chronic illness, co-morbidity and frailty are reasons for dependencies. These in turn lead to limited (...) abilities or opportunities for decision-making and self-determination. Exclusion of vulnerable people from research projects would disadvantage them by not covering their needs, which would violate the ethical principles of justice and beneficence. Commonly, vulnerability is attributed to social groups. The consequence for individuals, attributed as belonging to such a vulnerable group, is that the principles of respect for autonomy, justice and beneficence are subordinated to the principle of non-maleficence, understood as avoiding the risk to cause more harm than good. In addition, group-specific attribution could lead to stigmatizing because labelling a person as deviation from a norm violates integrity. For clinical nursing research, the question arises how the protection of vulnerable people could be granted without compromising ethical principles. The concept of relational ethics provides a possible approach. It defines vulnerability as the relation between a person’s health status and the extent to which this person is dependent on the researcher and the research context. Vulnerability is not attributed solely to a person but to a situation, meaning the person is viewed in context. By combining vulnerability as a context-related and situational concept with existing approaches of informed consent, the different ethical principles can be balanced and preserved at every step of the research process. (shrink)

These CQ Sources were compiled by Bette Anton.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 has stipulated that in England and Wales the ethical implications of carrying out research with people who are unable to consent must be considered alongside the ethical implications of excluding them from research altogether. This paper describes the methods that were used to enable people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities, who lacked capacity, to participate in a study that examined their experience of receiving intimate care. The safeguards that were put in place to protect (...) the rights and well-being of participants are described, and it is argued that the approaches used in this study met the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Although this paper is based on research involving people with intellectual disabilities, it has implications for research involving other groups who may also lack capacity to consent, including people with mental health problems, head injuries and dementia. (shrink)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 has stipulated that in England and Wales the ethical implications of carrying out research with people who are unable to consent must be considered alongside the ethical implications of excluding them from research altogether. This paper describes the methods that were used to enable people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities, who lacked capacity, to participate in a study that examined their experience of receiving intimate care. The safeguards that were put in place to protect (...) the rights and well-being of participants are described, and it is argued that the approaches used in this study met the requirements set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Although this paper is based on research involving people with intellectual disabilities, it has implications for research involving other groups who may also lack capacity to consent, including people with mental health problems, head injuries and dementia. (shrink)