How Democracy Can Inform Consent: Cases of the Internet and Bioethics

Traditional conceptions of informed consent seem difficult or even impossible to apply to new technologies like biobanks, big data, or GMOs, where vast numbers of people are potentially affected, and where consequences and risks are indeterminate or even unforeseeable. Likewise, the principle has come under strain with the appropriation and monetisation of personal information on digital platforms. Over time, it has largely been reduced to bare assent to formalistic legal agreements. To address the current ineffectiveness of the norm of informed consent, I suggest that we need a notion of structural injustice (on a distinctive interpretation, elaborated here, which takes account of unequal power and property relations). I then argue that in order to protect and enhance people's freedom, we have to go beyond traditional applied ethics and introduce perspectives from democratic theory and social philosophy. I attempt to show how applications of the ‘all‐affected principle’, together with new forms of democratic participation, deliberation, and representation can helpfully frame the narrower principle of informed consent. There is an important role for what we could call collective consent, and informed consent can only succeed in increasing individual agency if it is situated within enhanced forms of democratic decision‐making.     

Democratic Control of Information in the Age of Surveillance Capitalism

Carol Gould's article offers a powerful argument against the sufficiency of informed consent in an age of surveillance capitalism. In this review, I assess the three main claims that Gould makes in her article, namely that (1) democratic control is required by the all‐affected principle; (2) democratic control is a means of ensuring that surveillance corporations and governments track public, rather than merely private, interests; and (3) democratic control is constitutive of freedom as self‐development and self‐transformation.     

Informed Consent in Asymmetrical Relationships: an Investigation into Relational Factors that Influence Room for Reflection

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply.     

Emergency Research without Consent under Polish Law

Although Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use does not contain an exception for emergency situations, and requires the informed consent of a legal representative in all cases where research is conducted on legally competent individuals who are unable to give informed consent, in Poland, emergency research can be conducted without consent. Polish regulations on emergency research can hardly be treated as a result of intentional legislative policy. Our provisions arise from multiple and sophisticated interpretations of different regulations that govern medical experiments on human subjects and clinical trials. These interpretations can be summarized as follows: (1) There are two categories of medical experiments: therapeutic and non-therapeutic experiments. Emergency research without consent may be conducted in the category of therapeutic experiment only (therapeutic experiment consists of the introduction by the physician of new or only partially proven diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive methods in order to achieve direct benefit to the health of the patients, and it can be carried out when hitherto applied methods were ineffective or their effectiveness was insufficient). (2). Emergency research may be conducted without consent if there is a situation of great urgency in which the research subject's life is in danger and there is no possibility of obtaining immediate consent from the research subject him or herself, or from his or her legal representative or guardianship court, and the research subject has not refused to give consent for the participation in an emergency therapeutic experiment. The legal representative or guardianship court shall be provided with all the relevant information concerning subject's participation in an experiment as soon as possible. All projects of emergency research with intent to be done without the research subject's consent must be approved by an independent bioethics committee. Because these five requirements seem to provide insufficient protection for a subject's autonomy and rights it is necessary to add to them two other conditions: (1) the emergency research could not be conducted using other research participants capable of giving informed consent; and (2) informed consent for continued participation in the emergency research shall be obtained from either the participant him or herself or the legally authorized representative as soon as possible (requirement of obtaining deferred consent). A consolidated single Act that will govern all aspects of medical experiments on human subjects, including emergency research, should be prepared and enacted as soon as possible.     

Should protections for research with humans who cannot consent apply to research with nonhuman primates?

Research studies and interventions sometimes offer potential benefits to subjects that compensate for the risks they face. Other studies and interventions, which I refer to as “nonbeneficial” research, do not offer subjects a compensating potential for benefit. These studies and interventions have the potential to exploit subjects for the benefit of others, a concern that is especially acute when investigators enroll individuals who are unable to give informed consent. US regulations for research with human subjects attempt to address this concern by mandating strict protections for nonbeneficial research with subjects who cannot consent. Typically, humans who cannot consent, such as children, may be enrolled in nonbeneficial research only when it poses low risks and has the potential to gather information of sufficient value to justify the risks, an appropriate surrogate gives permission on the individual’s behalf and the individual agrees (assents). In contrast, US regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates do not include these protections, even though it too involves subjects who cannot consent and who face risks for the benefit of others. Is this difference in regulatory protections justified? Or does the principle of fairness—treat like cases alike—imply that regulations for nonbeneficial research with nonhuman primates should include protections similar to those that apply to nonbeneficial research with humans who cannot consent?     

Audit of the Informed Consent Process as a Part of a Clinical Research Quality Assurance Program

Audits of the informed consent process are a key element of a clinical research quality assurance program. A systematic approach to such audits has not been described in the literature. In this paper we describe two components of the audit. The first is the audit of the informed consent document to verify adherence with federal regulations. The second component is comprised of the audit of the informed consent conference, with emphasis on a real time review of the appropriate communication of the key elements of the informed consent. Quality measures may include preparation of an informed consent history log, notes to accompany the informed consent, the use of an informed consent feedback tool, and the use of institutional surveys to assess comprehension of the informed consent process.     

Comparison of Informed Consent Preferences for Multiplex Genetic Carrier Screening among a Diverse Population

Multiplex genetic carrier screening is increasingly being integrated into reproductive care. Obtaining informed consent becomes more challenging as the number of screened conditions increases. Implementing a model of generic informed consent may facilitate informed decision-making. Current Wayne State University students and staff were invited to complete a web-based survey by blast email solicitation. Participants were asked to determine which of two generic informed consent scenarios they preferred: a brief versus a detailed consent. They were asked to rank the importance of different informational components in making an informed decision and to provide demographic information. Comparisons between informational preferences, demographic variables and scenario preferences were made. Six hundred ninety three participants completed the survey. When evaluating these generic consents, the majority preferred the more detailed consent (74.5 %), and agreed that it provided enough information to make an informed decision (89.5 %). Those who thought it would be more important to know the severity of the conditions being screened (p?=?.002) and range of symptoms (p?=?.000) were more likely to prefer the more detailed consent. There were no significant associations between scenario preferences and demographic variables. A generic consent was perceived to provide sufficient information for informed decision making regarding multiplex carrier screening with most preferring a more detailed version of the consent. Individual attitudes rather than demographic variables influenced preferences regarding the amount of information that should be included in the generic consent. The findings have implications for how clinicians approach providing tailored informed consent.     

Informed Consent and the Requirement to Ensure Understanding

It is generally held that doctors and researchers have an obligation to obtain informed consent. Over time there has been a move in relation to this obligation from a requirement to disclose information to a requirement to ensure that that information is understood. Whilst this change has been resisted, in this article I argue that both sides on this matter are mistaken. When investigating what information is needed for consent to be informed we might be trying to determine what information a person would need in order to consent at all, or we might be trying to determine what information a person needs in order to make an informed choice about whether or not to consent. I argue that the obligation to ensure understanding only applies to information generated by the first type of enquiry; but that much of the information generally thought necessary in order for consent to be informed is only required if our concern is with the second type of enquiry. For this reason it is neither the case that doctors and researchers should ensure all the information they provide is understood, nor is it the case that their only obligation is to disclose it.     

Protecting and respecting the vulnerable: existing regulations or further protections?

Scholars and policymakers continue to struggle over the meaning of the word “vulnerable” in the context of research ethics. One major reason for the stymied discussions regarding vulnerable populations is that there is no clear distinction between accounts of research vulnerabilities that exist for certain populations and discussions of research vulnerabilities that require special regulations in the context of research ethics policies. I suggest an analytic process by which to ascertain whether particular vulnerable populations should be contenders for additional regulatory protections. I apply this process to two vulnerable populations: the cognitively vulnerable and the economically vulnerable. I conclude that a subset of the cognitively vulnerable require extra protections while the economically vulnerable should be protected by implementing existing regulations more appropriately and rigorously. Unless or until the informed consent process is more adequately implemented and the distributive justice requirement of the Belmont Report is emphasized and operationalized, the economically disadvantaged will remain particularly vulnerable to the harm of exploitation in research.     

纸质与视频补充材料对手术知情同意体验的影响：以腹腔镜胆囊切除手术为例

知情同意书在医患沟通中起着间接传递信息的重要作用。以159名大学生为被试,通过操纵不同的知情同意方式,考察了纸质或视频补充信息对患者知情同意满意度、理解程度以及患者信息需求的满足程度影响。结果发现,接受纸质补充知情同意或视频补充知情同意的被试对知情同意过程的满意度、对手术信息的理解程度与知情同意信息需求的满足程度显著高于接受普通知情同意的被试。同时,纸质补充知情同意使得“治疗信息需求的满足程度”最高。这表明,纸质补充知情同意更能满足患者对治疗信息的需求。     

Rethinking Research Ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upoconcentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.     

Participants' understanding of the process of psychological research: informed consent

Sixty-five undergraduates participating in a wide range of psychological research experiments were interviewed in depth about their research experiences and their views on the process of informed consent. Overall, 32% of research experiences were characterized positively and 41% were characterized negatively. One major theme of the negative experiences was that experiments were perceived as too invasive, suggesting incomplete explication of negative aspects of research during the informed consent process. Informed consent experiences were viewed positively 80% of the time. However, most of the participants had a limited view of the purpose of informed consent: less than 20% viewed the process as a decision point. Results suggest a number of common pitfalls to standard informed consent practices that have not generally been recognized. Results are discussed in terms of both ethical and methodological implications. Suggestions for improving the informed consent process are also provided.     

Informed Consent Procedure for Clinical Trials in Emergency Settings: The Polish Perspective

Setting reasonable and fair limits of emergency research acceptability in ethical norms and legal regulations must still adhere to the premise of well-being of the research subject over the interests of science and society. Informed consent of emergency patients to be enrolled in clinical trials is a particularly difficult issue due to impaired competencies of patients’ to give consent, short diagnostic and therapeutic windows, as well as the requirement to provide detailed information to participants. Whereas the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice guideline, Additional Protocol to the European Bioethical Convention concerning Biomedical Research, as well as appropriate regulations adopted by the Food and Drugs Administration (USA) allow waivers from participants’ consent or deferred consent for emergency research, the regulations of most European Community countries following the Clinical Trial Directive (2001/20/EC) do not give space for a deferred consent or a waiver from consent for adult patients (unless surrogate consent is made use of). This is even more confusing in case of Poland, where conflicting regulations on a waiver from a participant’s consent in emergency research exist and the regulations on surrogate consent of temporarily incompetent adults are too restrictive and authorise only the guardianship courts to consent, which is not or hardly feasible in practice. European Community regulations need to be amended to allow for implementation of the deferred consent or waivers from consent for emergency research in order to enable ethical research of emergency conditions that should become a large part of important public health priorities.     

Rethinking research ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.     

Rethinking research ethics

Contemporary research ethics policies started with reflection on the atrocities perpetrated upon concentration camp inmates by Nazi doctors. Apparently, as a consequence of that experience, the policies that now guide human subject research focus on the protection of human subjects by making informed consent the centerpiece of regulatory attention. I take the choice of context for policy design, the initial prioritization of informed consent, and several associated conceptual missteps, to have set research ethics off in the wrong direction. The aim of this paper is to sort out these confusions and their implications and to offer instead a straightforward framework for considering the ethical conduct of human subject research. In the course of this discussion I clarify different senses of autonomy that have been confounded and present more intelligible justifications for informed consent. I also take issue with several of the now accepted dogmas that govern research ethics. These include: the primacy of informed consent, the protection of the vulnerable, the substitution of beneficence for research's social purpose, and the introduction of an untenable distinction between innovation and research.     

Informed consent—Wishful thinking?

This article is concerned with the concept of “informed consent” as applied both in biomedical research involving human subjects and in clinical medicine in general. The current crisis over the elaboration and interpretation of the concept will be examined, along with the broader question of whether “informed consent” is any longer meaningful or viable as a criterion for complex bioethical policy-making. Finally, I will attempt to sketch a prognosis for the concept in doctor-patient relations, even if it is only wishful thinking.     

Performance of Ethical Military Research is Possible: On and Off the Battlefield

Many of the same fundamental principles and regulations that govern civilian biomedical research also apply to research conducted by the US Military. Despite these similarities, the conduct of research by the US Military has additional requirements designed to preserve service members' informed consent rights, ethical standards and information that may be deemed classified. Furthermore, there are also additional rules and regulations associated with potential research to be done in a combat setting. Before conducting battlefield research, many unique circumstances must be considered to include: (1) the current legal and regulatory requirements for advanced informed consent (2) the tactical situations, and the ability to adequately document in the "austere" environment (3) the need to provide improved drugs and devices for combat casualty care and (4) the special nature of the superior-subordinate relationship. This paper discusses historical background, regulatory oversight, ethical implications and release of information as it pertains to research conducted by the US Military.     

浅析知情同意权在我国立法中的不足

分析了我国在知情同意问题上的法律规则,指出我国现有法律存在四方面的立法缺陷,即对医生同时柯加告知义务与不告知义务,使医生陷入两难处境;在病人同意权方面只要求实验性和特殊诊疗措施征得病人同意,同意的主体上多且乱,过份强调病人家属的同意,侵害或剥夺了病人的自主权;对知情同意权的含义认识不清;知情权与同意权相分离而没有形成完整统一的病人知情同意权,在此基础上,提出完善我国立法的建议。     

Informed Consent

Summary

This article focuses on informed consent and the components to be reviewed with clients in the first session or as early as possible thereafter. Recent changes that give patients greater autonomy in the treatment process are also presented. The process of obtaining informed consent or informed refusal places a new responsibility on the practitioner. Informed consent as it pertains to clinical practice, supervision and training, and psychological research is also discussed.