Evaluating the Therapeutic Misconception

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal (Impact Factor: 1.21). 01/2007; 16(4):353-66. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2006.0025
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The "therapeutic misconception", described by Paul Appelbaum and colleagues more than 20 years ago, refers to the tendency of participants in clinical trials to confuse the design and conduct of research with personalized medical care. Although the "therapeutic misconception" has become a term of art in research ethics, little systematic attention has been devoted to the ethical significance of this phenomenon. This article examines critically the way in which Appelbaum and colleagues formulate what is at stake in the therapeutic misconception, paying particular attention to assumptions and implications that clinical trial participation disadvantages research participants as compared with receiving standard medical care. After clarifying the ethical significance of the therapeutic misconception with respect to the decision making of patients, we offer policy recommendations for obtaining informed consent to participation in clinical trials.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "" This means that for some, opinions about biobank participation and policy issues were being formulated for the first time. Although we clarified in our education presentation and focus groups that clinical care was not the same as research participation, a number of participants expressed the expectation that biobank participation would provide interpretable findings helpful for personal clinical treatment, which is consistent with findings of possible therapeutic misconception described in other studies [Ormond et al., 2009; Miller and Joffe, 2006]. Some participants also grappled with the concept of broad consent, which was defined and explained in the education sessions. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To be respectful of the public, biobank guiding principles and operations should be responsive to and inclusive of the values and beliefs of their participants. In an effort to increase knowledge and inform institutional policies, we conducted a deliberative engagement of individuals from two healthcare facilities in South Side Chicago that serve different socioeconomic communities to consider biobank policies regarding return of research results. We recruited primary caregivers of children receiving care at either a Federally Qualified Health Center or a university-based practice to attend two full-day deliberative engagement sessions, which included four educational presentations followed by focus group discussions. Surveys were administered to assess attitudes before and after the engagement, and an evaluation was conducted to assess the deliberative engagement process. All 45 participants self-identified as African-American. Focus group themes included: (1) overall interest in biobank participation, broad consent, and recontact; (2) root causes of distrust and potential biobank strategies to facilitate trust; (3) perceived positive and negative aspects of receiving research results; and (4) strong interest in receiving and managing their children's research results. Survey data indicated the same degree of interest in receiving results about themselves as about their children. Pre- and post-session findings showed mainly non-significant attitudinal changes in level of interest in biobank participation and return of research results, although there was a decrease in level of concern regarding identification from research data. Our findings reveal shared community insights important in facilitating relationships and policy discussions between biobank researchers and research participants.
    American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A 05/2012; 158A(5):1029-37. DOI:10.1002/ajmg.a.34414 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Little is known about how research participants weigh the benefits and burdens of their participation in clinical trials. Joffe and Miller (2006) rightfully argue that a risk/benefit assessment is part of any research review process . In fact, the Belmont Report, an enduring historical medical ethics document, outlines three specific ethical principles for the protection of human subjects enrolled in clinical research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recruiting and retaining human participants in cancer clinical trials is challenging for many investigators. Although we expect participants to identify and weigh the benefits and burdens of research participation for themselves, it is not clear what burdens adult cancer participants perceive in relation to benefits. We identify key attributes and develop an initial conceptual framework of benefit and burden based on interviews with individuals enrolled in cancer clinical research. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 32 patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials at a large northeastern cancer center. Krueger's guidelines for qualitative methodology were followed. Respondents reported a range of benefits and burdens associated with research participation. Benefits such as access to needed medications that subjects otherwise might not be able to afford, early detection and monitoring of the disease, potential for remission or cure, and the ability to take control of their lives through actively participating in the trial were identified. Burdens included the potentiality of side effects, worry and fear of the unknown, loss of job support, and financial concerns. Both benefit and burden influence research participation, including recruitment and retention in clinical trials. Dimensions of benefit and burden include physical, psychological, economic, familial, and social. Understanding the benefit-burden balance involved in the voluntary consent of human subjects is a fundamental tenet of research and important to ensure that subjects have made an informed decision regarding their decision to participate in clinical research.
    AJOB Primary Research 04/2012; 3(2):10-23. DOI:10.1080/21507716.2011.653472
  • Source
    • "Ethically important is a patient's misconception of research as care, ie, “to confuse the design and conduct of research with personalised medical care.13 This situation was labelled 25 years ago ”therapeutic misconception“ (TM).14 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ethical core issues in research with human subjects are related to informed consent and risk-benefit assessment. This is valid for all types of studies. However, there has been much greater focus of ethical considerations on controlled clinical trials than on naturalistic trials, probably because the former are interventional in nature and may have unknown and perhaps severe somatic risks, whereas naturalistic studies seem not to intervene but only to observe, and therefore are assumed to have fewer or almost no risks. However, there are also ethical implications in naturalistic trials, although their weight is differently accentuated, more with potential, more with potential psychological burdens of the observational procedures and more with potential physical risks in interventional trials. This will be elaborated with examples of placebo-controlled trials and of incidental findings in screenings, of marketing influences on observational studies, and of psychological burdens by survey interviews. The ethical implications will be analyzed within a more general framework. Finally, recommendations will be offered.
    Dialogues in clinical neuroscience 06/2011; 13(2):173-82.
Show more