Shading the truth in seeking informed consent for research purposes

Deceiving Research Participants: Is It Inconsistent With Valid Consent?

It is widely assumed that the use of deception in research is always inconsistent with obtaining valid consent. In addition, guidelines and regulations permit research without valid consent only when it poses no greater than minimal risk. Current practice thus prohibits studies that use deception and pose greater than minimal risk, including studies that rely on deceptive methods to evaluate experimental treatments. To assess whether these prohibitions are justified, the present paper evaluates five arguments that might be thought to support the assumption that deception is always inconsistent with valid consent. Analysis of these arguments reveals that deception is frequently, but not always, inconsistent with obtaining valid consent for research. This conclusion suggests that, in order to avoid unnecessarily blocking valuable research, current policies and practice should be revised to recognize the conditions under which the use of deception can be consistent with obtaining research participants' valid consent.

Trust me, I'm a researcher!: The role of trust in biomedical research

In biomedical research lack of trust is seen as a great threat that can severely jeopardise the whole biomedical research enterprise. Practices, such as informed consent, and also the administrative and regulatory oversight of research in the form of research ethics committees and Institutional Review Boards, are established to ensure the protection of future research subjects and, at the same time, restore public trust in biomedical research. Empirical research also testifies to the role of trust as one of the decisive factors in research participation and lack of trust as a barrier for consenting to research. However, what is often missing is a clear definition of trust. This paper seeks to address this gap. It starts with a conceptual analysis of the term trust. It compares trust with two other related terms, those of reliance and trustworthiness, and offers a defence of Baier's attribute of 'good will' a basic characteristic of trust. It, then, proceeds to consider trust in the context of biomedical research by examining two questions: First, is trust necessary in biomedical research?; and second, do increases in regulatory oversight of biomedical research also increase trust in the field? This paper argues that regulatory oversight is important for increasing reliance in biomedical research, but it does not improve trust, which remains important for biomedical research. It finishes by pointing at professional integrity as a way of promoting trust and trustworthiness in this field.

Using informed consent to save trust

Increasingly, bioethicists defend informed consent as a safeguard for trust in caretakers and medical institutions.This paper discusses an ‘ideal type’ of that move. What I call the trust-promotion argument for informed consent states:1. Social trust, especially trust in caretakers and medical institutions, is necessary so that, for example,people seek medical advice, comply with it, and participate in medical research.2. Therefore, it is usually wrong to jeopardise that trust.3. Coercion, deception, manipulation and other violations of standard informed consent requirements seriously jeopardise that trust.4. Thus, standard informed consent requirements are justified.This article describes the initial promise of this argument, then identifies challenges to it. As I show, the value of trust fails to account for some common sense intuitions about informed consent. We should revise the argument, common sense morality, or both.

What are terminally ill cancer patients told about their expected deaths? A study of cancer physicians' self-reports of prognosis disclosure

PURPOSE

Little is known about how physicians discuss prognosis with terminally ill cancer patients. Thus, we sought to obtain cancer physicians' self-reports of their prognosis communication practices.

METHODS

A survey seeking self-reports regarding prognosis communication with their terminally ill cancer patients was mailed to a systematic sample of medical oncologists in the United States.

RESULTS

Of 1,137 physicians, 729 completed and returned surveys (64% response rate). Median age of respondents was 51 years (range, 33 to 80 years); 82% were men. Respondents had practiced cancer care for a median of 18 years (range, 1.5 to 50 years) and reported seeing a median of 60 patients per week (range, 0 to 250 patients per week). Although 98% said their usual practice is to tell terminally ill patients that they will die, 48% specifically described communicating terminal prognoses to patients only when specific preferences for prognosis information were expressed. Forty-three percent said they always or usually communicate a medical estimate of time as to when death is likely to occur, and 57% reported sometimes, rarely, or never giving a time frame. Seventy-three percent said prognosis communication education was either absent or inadequate during their training, and 96% believed it should be part of cancer care training.

CONCLUSION

Medical oncologists report routinely informing their terminally ill patients that they will die. However, they are divided in describing themselves as either always discussing a terminal prognosis or doing so if it is consistent with their patients' preferences for prognostic information. Most medical oncologists say they do not routinely communicate an estimated survival time to their patients.

What a tangled web we weave: ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment

Deception in human subject research is neither uncommon nor prohibited. The use of deception in the recruitment phase of clinical research has received relatively little attention. Given that informed consent is foundational to human subject research, the practice of misrepresenting the study purpose in clinical research would seem to contradict one of the fundamental tenets of ethical human subjects research. Using the example of prodromal psychosis, this article the ethical and legal implications of deception in recruitment and the sufficiency of current guidance on the practice when the study involves a stigmatizing condition, the collection of genetic samples, or both. I conclude that when these two elements are present, deception should only be used when absolutely necessary and, if used, researchers should be required to debrief participants before the collection of genetic samples and give particular attention to minimizing risks of privacy breaches.

Informing participants in clinical trials with ex vivo human tissue-engineered products: what to tell and how to tell it?

Ex vivo tissue-engineered products are increasingly entered into clinical trials. To allow prospective participants to make a fully informed, autonomous decision on their participation, we have to adapt the informed consent process by taking the specific aspects of tissue engineering into consideration. New elements in ex vivo tissue engineering are the source and manipulation of the cells in the product, the implantation of the product and the additional risks and benefits due to the construction of the product and its activity in the body. They are the result of the delicate nature of some cell types and of the complexity of the tissue engineering process. The process of informing the participant should be designed in such a way that the participant's capacity to understand the intervention and its implications is enhanced. Crucial issues, such as the aim and procedure of the trial, the risks and benefits involved and the role of the investigator, have to be clarified. We suggest that participants' understanding of the trial can be enhanced through the use of audiovisual material, by developing a simple questionnaire to direct the information process further, and by the assistance of informed third parties to help participants in their decision-making processes.

Ethical considerations in social psychological research: is the bogus pipeline a special case?

The ethics of using deception in research are discussed, and Aguinis and Handelsman's (1997) arguments that research using the bogus pipeline (BPL), in particular, is unethical are reviewed and critiqued. Stances that view any deception research as unethical may be reasonable, and lead to the conclusion that BPL research is unethical. However, if the position taken is that deception research may be ethically acceptable, then there is not basis for concluding that BPL research is intrinsically unethical. The same considerations that are taken into account when deciding whether any deception in research is ethical apply to decisions about the ethical appropriateness of using the BPL.

Ethical issues in the development of new agents

In the early drug development process for cancer therapy, several ethical dilemmas result from the use of cancer patients with advanced disease as the subjects of research in clinical trials studying agents of unknown toxicity and/or efficacy. Although several accepted ethical principles guide the behavior of involved physicians and investigators, many of these principles are allowed to be violated in order to achieve the overall goal of clinical research in improving medical care for future patients. Informed consent has been a process viewed by many as a mechanism which protects potentially vulnerable patients from harm in the clinical trial process. However, the ability of the traditionally regulated process of obtaining informed consent for clinical research may be inadequate to ensure appropriate understanding of the purposes and the goals of early clinical trial research by potentially vulnerable advanced cancer patients. This creates further dilemmas with regard to physician-investigator and patient-subject communications. In the setting of phase I trials, where the specific goal of the research is to obtain toxicity information regarding a new potential anticancer agent, many heightened ethical conflicts are present. The fact that patients do not participate in these studies as a result of altruism, and that their main goals of participation are intensely therapeutic, create issues that may be in direct conflict with the research purpose of phase I trials. As well, the presence of therapeutic intentions on the part of involved physician-investigators creates challenging issues when one realizes the very low likelihood of benefit for individual patients participating in these studies. Within the phase II setting, the statistical constraints placed on new drug trials and, again, the low likelihood of benefit for participating-subjects, also creates challenging dilemmas. These statistical requirements may be in direct conflict with involved clinicians' attitudes and beliefs regarding potential efficacy of an agent in this setting. As well, these issues become problematic when thinking about the desired structure and outcome for informed consent in phase II anticancer trials. The ability to conduct clinical research on advanced cancer patients using agents of unknown efficacy and toxicity is a daunting privilege granted to physicians and accompanying institutions. The weight of this privilege should not be underestimated, and involved physician-investigators should be aware of the significant ethical challenges involved in appropriately and successfully conducting this form of research.

Impact of therapeutic research on informed consent and the ethics of clinical trials: a medical oncology perspective

PURPOSE

To create a more meaningful understanding of the informed consent process as it has come to be practiced and regulated in clinical trials, this discussion uses the experience gained from the conduct of therapeutic research that involves cancer patients.

DESIGN

After an introduction of the ethical tenets of the consent process in clinical research that involves potentially vulnerable patients as research subjects, background that details the use of written consent documents and of the term "informed consent" is provided. Studies from the cancer setting that examine the inadequacies of written consent documents, and the outcome of the consent process itself, are reviewed. Two ethically challenging areas of cancer clinical research, the phase I trial and the randomized controlled trial, are discussed briefly as a means of highlighting many dilemmas present in clinical trials. Before concluding, areas for future research are discussed.

RESULTS

Through an exclusive cancer research perspective, many current deficiencies in the informed consent process for therapeutic clinical trials can be critically examined. Also, new directions for improvements and areas of further research can be outlined and discussed objectively. The goals of such improvements and research should be prevention of further misguided or ineffective efforts to regulate the informed consent process.

CONCLUSION

To ignore this rich and interesting perspective potentially contributes to continued misunderstanding and apathy toward fulfilling the regulatory and ethically obligatory requirements involved in an essential communication process between a clinician-investigator and a potentially vulnerable patient who is considering clinical trial participation.

Modified informed consent in a viral seroprevalence study in the Caribbean

An unlinked seroprevalence study of HIV and other viruses was conducted on pregnant women on the Caribbean island of Grenada in 1994. Investigators were from both the developed world and the Grenadian Ministry of Health (MOH). There was then no board on Grenada to protect research subjects or review ethical aspects of studies. Nurses from the MOH were asked to verbally inform their patients about the study, and request that patients become subjects of the study and give blood for screening. If consent was given nurses took blood and administered a survey about each subjects' knowledge of HIV transmission routes. Nurses shared a spoken dialect and cultural heritage with prospective subjects and were probably more effective than foreign researchers at informing subjects. Informed consent was obtained with a simplified consent form supplemented with conversation with each prospective research subject. Facilitating discussion between people with common cultural backgrounds helps apply the Western approach to informed consent to communites in the developing world. Researchers must disclose all information to nurses or other mediators, and ensure that nurses disclose as much information as possible to prospective subjects. So modified, informed consent maintains respect for persons and becomes applicable and relevant to various cultures.