Do people with intellectual disability require special human subjects research protections? The interplay of history, ethics, and policy

Appropriate inclusion of adult research participants with intellectual disability: an in-depth review of guidelines and policy statements

The history of human-subject experimentation has shown the need for safeguards to protect participants from abuse. Balancing participant protection with adequate representation of the adult intellectual disability population in research presents an important challenge. Our study aimed to analyze guidance on the appropriate inclusion of adults with intellectual disability who are or are not able to consent to biomedical research participation. Terminology, consent and type of ethically acceptable research provisions relevant to adult participants with intellectual disability were comprehensively reviewed in a selection of 17 international and national ethical research guidelines and statements. Most guidelines and statements recommend that adult participants with intellectual disability who are unable to consent be included when it is not possible to conduct the same research with adults capable of independent decision-making, or when there is therapeutic benefit and only minimal risk. Instead of naming specific requirements, the Australian statement stands out by asserting the "individual right" to participate. Assent requirements for incapacitated adults are not explicitly mentioned in most documents reviewed. There appears to be room for further description of the importance of careful capacity assessments and solid assent requirements in ethical research guidance documentation to promote meaningful participation of adults with intellectual disability.

COVID-19 Trial Enrollment for Those Who Cannot Consent: Ethical Challenges Posed by a Pandemic

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered an intense global research effort to inform the life-saving work of frontline clinicians who need reliable information as soon as possible. Yet research done in pressured circumstances can lead to ethical dilemmas, especially for vulnerable research subjects. We present the case of a child with neurocognitive impairment who is diagnosed with COVID-19 infection after presenting with fever and a seizure. The child lives in a group home and is in the custody of the state; her parents lost parental rights many years ago. Some members of the health care team want to enroll her in a randomized clinical trial evaluating an experimental treatment of COVID-19. For minor patients to enroll in this clinical trial, the institutional review board requires assent of patients and consent of guardians. An ethics consult is called to help identify relevant concerns in enrollment. In the accompanying case discussion, we address historical perspectives on research involving people with disabilities; proper management of research participation for people with disabilities including consent by proxy, therapeutic misconception, and other threats to the ethical validity of clinical trials; and the potentially conflicting obligations of researchers and clinicians.

Parent ratings of ability to consent for clinical trials in fragile X syndrome

Advances in understanding neurobiology and intellectual disabilities have led to clinical trials testing new medications. This study assessed parents' perceptions of the ability of their son or daughter with fragile X syndrome (FXS), an inherited form of intellectual disability, to participate in the consent process for clinical trials. Four hundred twenty-two families participated in a survey that included six items assessing various aspects of the ability to provide consent. A rank ordering of decisional tasks was found. The easiest task was to understand that the medication was different from his or her medical treatment; the most difficult was the ability to understand and weigh the potential benefits and risks of study participation. Factor analysis suggested that despite the range in difficulty, the six items were best summarized by a single decisional ability score. Parents of 29% of males reported that their son was not at all capable of participating, but the remainder exhibited a range of decisional skills. Factors associated with this variability include age and parents' willingness to enroll their child in clinical trials. We conclude that many individuals with FXS appear to be able to participate at some level in the consent or assent process, but will likely need individualized support to maximize effective participation.