Assessing the Ethics of Medical Research in Emergency Settings: How Do International Regulations Work in Practice?

National Advisory Board on Health Care Ethics, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, P.O. Box 33, 00023 Government, Helsinki, Finland.
Science and Engineering Ethics (Impact Factor: 0.96). 10/2007; 13(3):305-13. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-007-9026-5
Source: PubMed


Different ethical principles conflict in research conducted in emergency research. Clinical care and its development should be based on research. Patients in critical clinical condition are in the greatest need of better medicines. The critical condition of the patient and the absence of a patient representative at the critical time period make it difficult and sometimes impossible to request an informed consent before the beginning of the trial. In an emergency, care decisions must be made in a short period of time, and the more time is wasted, the more the risk of death or severe tissue damage and incapacity increases. Consent requests take time, and so the time period before treatment might put the patient's life in jeopardy. Not requesting consent before a trial is also contradictory. A person should not be forced to participate in a trial against his or her will. Due to the dark history of medical research previously, international declarations and conventions have set up ethical principles for medical research. They emphasize the autonomy of the research participant--or his or her legal representative--to give a free and informed consent prior to the initiation of research. In the case of a critical emergency, the unconscious state of the patient, the emotional stress of family members or the lack of time to start life-sustaining measures may often restrict the possibilities of communicating with the patient or his/her representative. Therefore, written informed consent is difficult to achieve, and its voluntariness in emergency situations is, at best, open to question. The mortality of patients is high without clinical interventions in emergency research. Random selection of patients is difficult and requires extra work from personnel in the emergency rooms. Recruitment, information and asking for consent may also take time, postpone the initiation of treatment and increase the risk of death and irreversible tissue and organ damage, and therefore be risky for the patient. It is therefore essential that the health care professionals recruiting suitable research participants are well motivated and well trained. Medical research in an emergency setting should always be regarded as an exceptional situation requiring special provisions. Only such research should be done as cannot be done in other conditions. An independent body must approve the research protocol and the ways in which the consent of the participant or proxy are to be sought. In addition, the trial must be expected to result in direct and significant benefit for the research participants. If research without prior consent is not approved, the development of emergency care is threatened. On the other hand, if prior consent is not required, a person could be recruited into a clinical trial against his or her will. Doing good and avoiding harm, and respecting the autonomy of the patient are in conflict in the context of emergency medical research. To develop better medicines for patients experiencing acute medical emergencies, research into such conditions should be allowed. Research participants should have the possibility to participate or refuse to participate in research that may benefit them and other patients. The risk of irreversible damage occurring as the consequence of time delays for seeking consent is unacceptable. A prior wish about participation in clinical trials should be respected, if known. The conditions under which medical research in emergencies can be considered acceptable can be determined and agreed upon nationally and internationally.

Full-text preview

Available from:
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Voluntary participation of a subject in research respects a subject's rights, strengthens its ethical conduct, and is formalized by the informed consent process. Clinical trials of life-saving interventions for medical emergencies often necessitate enrollment of patients where prior written individual informed consent is impossible. Although there are regulations and guidelines on protecting subjects in emergency research, these have been criticised for being limited and unnecessarily restrictive. Across Europe and the United States stringent regulations have resulted in a substantial decline of clinical trials involving emergency interventions. We are conducting a trial of fluid resuscitation in children with hypovolaemic shock in six hospitals across three malaria-endemic African countries. The design is pragmatic as children are enrolled on clinical criteria alone and is being conducted in hospitals with facilities typical of many district hospitals across Africa. The trial aims to inform strategy for managing children with febrile illness and features of shock. In order to develop appropriate consent processes for the trial, we conducted a narrative review of current international recommendations for emergency consent. Practical or specific guidance was generally sparse or confusing with few examples in the literature to direct our informed consent process. For a sub-group of children who were critically sick or where parents themselves were otherwise too distressed to consider prior written consent, we opted for a modified form of deferred consent. This included verbal assent from guardians at the point of enrollment, with full written consent obtained after stabilising the child. For children who died prior to full written consent, ethical permission was received to waiver full consent. In light of the controversy around guidance and regulations in this area we report how and why we have used a modified system of deferred consent in an emergency intervention trial in children. Although approved by all relevant ethics committees and operational in 3 countries in Africa, formal research is now necessary to explore the perceptions and experiences of parents, health workers, researchers and ethics committees of the modified method of deferred consent.
    Trials 03/2011; 12(1):90. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-12-90 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research has been integral to the practice of medicine for almost as long as the discipline has existed. Until fairly recently research used to be conducted on human subjects without mandatory requirement for their consent. However, over time medical research became associated with significant cruelty resulting in an outcry for regulation of research actives. This resulted in significant legislation in place for monitoring. Today it is mandatory to obtain consent from subjects before embarking on medical research, and indeed treatment. Its significant regulatory role notwithstanding, the issue of consent at times becomes a hindrance to research. This paper examines the issue of consent in relation to medical research in the context of present legislation. It lays out the background to medical research with respect to purpose, scope, standard protocol and related issues; it then addresses the issue of consent in various scenarios, highlighting problems and the need for legislative reform. It is maintained that while regulatory measures have brought a lot of sanity to medical research and the medical profession, some measures are building walls inhibitory to research activities. Research being integral to the development and growth of healthcare delivery, there is need for reformation of current medical law for balance between patient protectionism and progress in medical research for effective patient care.
    Medicine and law 12/2011; 30(4):477-95.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper presents the perspective that conflicts between the ideal and the actual emergency room practice can be resolved by reference to the purposes of the law, maqasid al shari’at, and principles of the law, qawa’id al fiqh. The principle of necessity, qa’idat al dharurat, allows waiving normal practices like informed consent to protect life. The principle of intention, qa’idat al yaqeen, requires that all intervention and research must be based on evidence as much as is possible in an emergency. The principle of injury, qa’idat al dharar, requires minimizing harm while maximizing benefits in emergency procedures, protection of privacy and confidentiality. End of life decisions involving artificial life support are based on finding the right evidence-based balance between the purpose of protecting life, hifdh al nafs, and the purpose of conserving resources, hifdh al maal; the final decision guided by the principle of certainty depends on evidence of benefit of the resuscitation. Under the principle of custom/precedence, qa’idat al ‘aadat, programmed decision-making routines, protocols and guidelines should be used in the emergency room. Under the principle of necessity, research necessary for improvement of emergency care can be carried out without prior consent by the patient or the guardians if certain specific conditions are fulfilled.
    12/2011; 6(2):77-85. DOI:10.1016/S1658-3612(11)70169-X
Show more