1
|
Butchart L, Krumenacker K, Baig A. Different approach to medical decision-making in difficult circumstances: Kittay's Ethics of Care. J Med Ethics 2023; 49:293-299. [PMID: 34426518 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107521] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 08/01/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated advances in bioethical approaches to medical decision-making. This paper develops an alternative method for rationing care during periods of resource scarcity. Typical approaches to triaging rely on utilitarian calculations; however, this approach introduces a problematic antihumanist sentiment, inviting the proposition of alternative schemata. As such, we suggest a feminist approach to medical decision-making, founded in and expanding upon the framework of Eva Kittay's Ethics of Care. We suggest that this new structure addresses the issue of medical decision-making during times of resource scarcity just as well as pure utilitarian approaches while better attending to their significant theoretical concerns, forming a coherent alternative to the current bioethical consensus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liam Butchart
- Center for Medical Humanities, Compassionate Care & Bioethics, Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York, USA
| | - Kristin Krumenacker
- Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York, USA
| | - Aymen Baig
- Stony Brook University Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sisk BA, Baldwin K, Parsons M, DuBois JM. Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0265252. [PMID: 35324933 PMCID: PMC8947496 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 02/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has caused death and economic injury around the globe. The urgent need for COVID-19 research created new ethical, regulatory, and practical challenges. The next public health emergency could be worse than COVID-19. We must learn about these challenges from the experiences of researchers and Research Ethics Committee professionals responsible for these COVID-19 studies to prepare for the next emergency. Materials and methods We conducted an online survey to identify the ethical, oversight, and regulatory challenges of conducting COVID-19 research during the early pandemic, and proposed solutions for overcoming these barriers. Using criterion-based, convenience sampling, we invited researchers who proposed or conducted COVID-19 research to complete an anonymous, online survey about their experiences. We administered a separate but related survey to Institutional Review Board (IRB) professionals who reviewed COVID-19 research studies. The surveys included open-ended and demographic items. We performed inductive content analysis on responses to open-ended survey questions. Results IRB professionals (n = 143) and researchers (n = 211) described 19 types of barriers to COVID-19 research, related to 5 overarching categories: policy and regulatory, biases and misperceptions, institutional and inter-institutional conflicts, risks of harm, and pressure of the pandemic. Researchers and IRB professionals described 8 categories of adaptations and solutions to these challenges: enacting technological solutions; developing protocol-based solutions; disposition and team management; establishing and communicating appropriate standards; national guidance and leadership; maintaining high standards; prioritizing studies before IRB review; and identifying and incorporating experts. Discussion and conclusions This inventory of challenges represents ongoing barriers to studying the current pandemic, and they represent a risk to research during future public health emergencies. Delays in studies of a pandemic during a pandemic threatens the health and safety of the public. We urge the development of a national working group to address these issues before the next public health emergency arises.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryan A. Sisk
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United State of America
- Division of General Medical Sciences, Bioethics Research Center, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America
| | - Kari Baldwin
- Division of General Medical Sciences, Bioethics Research Center, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America
| | - Meredith Parsons
- Division of General Medical Sciences, Bioethics Research Center, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America
| | - James M. DuBois
- Division of General Medical Sciences, Bioethics Research Center, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Faust A, Sierawska A, Krüger K, Wisgalla A, Hasford J, Strech D. Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics 2021; 22:96. [PMID: 34281535 PMCID: PMC8287116 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-021-00666-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/05/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community's attempt to focus the attention on fighting COVID-19, led to several challenges within the field of research ethics. However, we know little about the practical relevance of these challenges for Research Ethics Committees (RECs). METHODS We conducted a qualitative survey across all 52 German RECs on the challenges and potential solutions with reviewing proposals for COVID-19 studies. We de-identified the answers and applied thematic text analysis for the extraction and synthesis of challenges and potential solutions that we grouped under established principles for clinical research ethics. RESULTS We received an overall response rate of 42%. The 22 responding RECs reported that they had assessed a total of 441 study proposals on COVID-19 until 21 April 2020. For the review of these proposals the RECs indicated a broad spectrum of challenges regarding (1) social value (e.g. lack of coordination), (2) scientific validity (e.g. provisional study planning), (3) favourable risk-benefit ratio (e.g. difficult benefit assessment), (4) informed consent (e.g. strict isolation measures), (5) independent review (e.g. lack of time), (6) fair selection of trial participants (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups), and (7) respect for study participants (e.g. data security). Mentioned solutions ranged from improved local/national coordination, over guidance on modified consent procedures, to priority setting across clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS RECs are facing a broad spectrum of pressing challenges in reviewing COVID-19 studies. Some challenges for consent procedures are well known from research in intensive care settings but are further aggravated by infection measures. Other challenges such as reviewing several clinical studies at the same time that potentially compete for the recruitment of in-house COVID-19 patients are unique to the current situation. For some of the challenges the proposed solutions in our survey could relatively easy be translated into practice. Others need further conceptual and empirical research. Our findings together with the increasing body of literature on COVID-19 research ethics, and further stakeholder engagement should inform the development of hands-on guidance for researchers, funders, RECs, and further oversight bodies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Faust
- QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Anna Sierawska
- QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Katharina Krüger
- Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany (AKEK, Arbeitskreis Der Medizinischen Ethik-Kommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland E.V.), Berlin, Germany
| | - Anne Wisgalla
- Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany (AKEK, Arbeitskreis Der Medizinischen Ethik-Kommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland E.V.), Berlin, Germany
| | - Joerg Hasford
- Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany (AKEK, Arbeitskreis Der Medizinischen Ethik-Kommissionen in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland E.V.), Berlin, Germany
- Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, LMU München, Munich, Germany
| | - Daniel Strech
- QUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany.
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Iyer AA, Saade D, Bharucha-Goebel D, Foley AR, Averion G'M, Paredes E, Gray S, Bönnemann CG, Grady C, Hendriks S, Rid A. Ethical challenges for a new generation of early-phase pediatric gene therapy trials. Genet Med 2021; 23:2057-2066. [PMID: 34234300 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01245-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2021] [Revised: 05/29/2021] [Accepted: 06/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
After decades of setbacks, gene therapy (GT) is experiencing major breakthroughs. Five GTs have received US regulatory approval since 2017, and over 900 others are currently in development. Many of these GTs target rare pediatric diseases that are severely life-limiting, given a lack of effective treatments. As these GTs enter early-phase clinical trials, specific ethical challenges remain unresolved in three domains: evaluating risks and potential benefits, selecting participants fairly, and engaging with patient communities. Drawing on our experience as clinical investigators, basic scientists, and bioethicists involved in a first-in-human GT trial for an ultrarare pediatric disease, we analyze these ethical challenges and offer points to consider for future GT trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander A Iyer
- Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Dimah Saade
- Neuromuscular and Neurogenetic Disorders of Childhood Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Diana Bharucha-Goebel
- Neuromuscular and Neurogenetic Disorders of Childhood Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.,Children's National Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - A Reghan Foley
- Neuromuscular and Neurogenetic Disorders of Childhood Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Gilberto 'Mike' Averion
- Neuromuscular and Neurogenetic Disorders of Childhood Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Eduardo Paredes
- Neuromuscular and Neurogenetic Disorders of Childhood Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Steven Gray
- University of Texas Southwestern Viral Vector Facility, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Carsten G Bönnemann
- Neuromuscular and Neurogenetic Disorders of Childhood Section, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Christine Grady
- Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Saskia Hendriks
- Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Annette Rid
- Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Voit K, Timmermann C, Steger F. Medication of Hydroxychloroquine, Remdesivir and Convalescent Plasma during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany-An Ethical Analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18:ijerph18115685. [PMID: 34073254 PMCID: PMC8197849 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2021] [Revised: 05/20/2021] [Accepted: 05/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
This paper aims to analyze the ethical challenges in experimental drug use during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, using Germany as a case study. In Germany uniform ethical guidelines were available early on nationwide, which was considered as desirable by other states to reduce uncertainties and convey a message of unity. The purpose of this ethical analysis is to assist the preparation of future guidelines on the use of medicines during public health emergencies. The use of hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir and COVID-19 convalescent plasma in clinical settings was analyzed from the perspective of the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, justice and autonomy. We observed that drug safety and drug distribution during the pandemic affects all four ethical principles. We therefore recommend to establish ethical guidelines (i) to discuss experimental treatment options with patients from all population groups who are in urgent need, (ii) to facilitate the recording of patient reactions to drugs in off-label use, (iii) to expand inclusion criteria for clinical studies to avoid missing potentially negative effects on excluded groups, and (iv) to maintain sufficient access to repurposed drugs for patients with prior conditions.
Collapse
|