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: 1.52). 10/2007; 13(3):305-13. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-007-9026-5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gametes, tissue, and organs can be taken from the dying or dead for reproduction, transplantation, and research. Whole bodies as well as parts can be used for teaching anatomy. While these uses are diverse, they have an ethical consideration in common: the claims of the people whose bodies are used. Is some use permissible only when people have consented to the use, actually wanted the use, would have wanted the use, not opposed the use, or what? The aim of this article is to make progress in answering these questions. Initially I assume knowledge of people's desires in order to test whether consent is directly required by their rights without worrying about mistaken uses against their wishes. I claim consent is not directly required by people's rights. If we know people wanted or would want a use, their rights permit the use, but if we know they wanted or would want not to be used, their rights do not permit the use. The knowledge assumption is then dropped and the question becomes how to decide what to do when the wishes of rightholders are not known. I suggest working out what to do when wishes are known and then adjusting, on the basis of whatever evidence there is, for probability and strength of desire. There are other considerations too, for instance about default rules. The key general comment here is that, in setting rules, the costs to rightholders in not getting what they want needs to be taken into account. The final section tries to show that, in setting these rules, mistaken uses are not to be taken as worse than mistaken failure to use.
    Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10/2012; DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhs041 · 0.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although recent studies support the rapid transfer of patients experiencing time-sensitive emergencies, limited data exist to support the use of air transport for nonurgent patient transfers. The nature of medical transport and the heterogeneity of patients who are transferred present unique challenges in designing and conducting clinical research trials that could contribute to the evidence-based decision making for patient care and transport. The current regulatory framework presents several barriers to conducting such research in the medical transport setting. We present a hypothetic study that randomizes patients to either ground or air transport as an exemplar. We discuss informed consent, risk, and the impracticality of conducting community consultations in a medical transport setting. Finally, recommendations for potential changes to current regulations are presented. These are directed at facilitating the conduct of emergency research through a system of oversight that integrates characteristics of quality improvement and health services research. Copyright © 2014 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Air Medical Transport 11/2014; 33(6):274-9. DOI:10.1016/j.amj.2014.06.009
  • 08/2014; 19(5):233-238. DOI:10.1080/22201173.2013.10872931


Available from