Informed consent and nudging

In order to avoid patient abuse, under normal situations before performing a medical intervention on a patient, a physician must obtain informed consent from that patient, where to give genuine informed consent a patient must be competent, understand her condition, her options and their expected risks and benefits, and must expressly consent to one of those options. However, many patients refrain from the option that their physician believes to be best, and many physicians worry that their patients make irrational healthcare decisions, hindering their ability to provide efficient healthcare for their patients. Some philosophers have proposed a solution to this problem: they advocate that physicians nudge their patients to steer them towards their physician's preferred option. A nudge is any influence designed to predictably alter a person's behavior without limiting their options or giving them reasons to act. Proponents of nudging contend that nudges are consistent with obtaining informed consent. Here I argue that nudging is incompatible with genuine informed consent, as it violates a physician's obligation to tell their patients the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during adequate disclosure.     

Ethical Issues in Adolescents' Sexual and Reproductive Health Research in Nigeria

There is increasing interest in the need to address the ethical dilemmas related to the engagement of adolescents in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research. Research projects, including those that address issues related to STIs and HIV, adverse pregnancy outcomes, violence, and mental health, must be designed and implemented to address the needs of adolescents. Decisions on when an individual has adequate capacity to give consent for research most commonly use age as a surrogate rather than directly assessing capacity to understand the issues and make an informed decision on whether to participate in research or not. There is a perception that adolescents participating in research are more likely to be coerced and may therefore not fully comprehend the risk they may be taking when engaging in research. This paper examines the various ethical issues that may impact stakeholders' decision making when considering engaging adolescents in SRH research in Nigeria. It makes a case for lowering the age of consent for adolescents. While some experts believe it is possible to extrapolate relevant information from adult research, studies on ethical aspects of adolescents' participation in research are still needed, especially in the field of sexual and reproductive health where there are often differences in knowledge, attitudes and practices compared to adults. The particular challenges of applying the fundamental principles of research ethics to adolescent research, especially research about sex and sexuality, will only become clear if more studies are conducted.     

Consent for participating in clinical trials ‐ Is it really informed?

The article explores the challenges of ensuring voluntary and informed consent which is obtained from potential research subjects in the north‐eastern part of Romania. This study is one of the first empirical papers of this nature in Romania. The study used a quantitative survey design using the adapted Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) questionnaire. The target population consisted of 100 adult persons who voluntarily enrolled in clinical trials. The informed consent form must contain details regarding the potential risks and benefits, the aim of the clinical trial, study design, confidentiality, insurance and contact details in case of additional questions. Our study confirmed that although all required information was included in the ICF, few clinical trial participants truly understood it. We also found that the most important predictive factor for a good subjective and objective understanding of the clinical trial was the level of education. Our study suggests that researchers should consider putting more effort in order to help clinical trials participants achieve a better understanding of the informed consent. In this way they will ensure that participants’ decision‐making is meaningful and that their interests are protected.     

WHAT SHOULD RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS UNDERSTAND TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH?

To give valid informed consent to participate in clinical research, potential participants should understand the risks, potential benefits, procedures, and alternatives. Potential participants also should understand that they are being invited to participate in research. Yet it is unclear what potential participants need to understand to satisfy this particular requirement. As a result, it is unclear what additional information investigators should disclose about the research; and it is also unclear when failures of understanding in this respect undermine the validity of potential participants' informed consent. An analysis of individuals' interests suggests that potential participants need to understand three additional facts to understand that they are being invited to participate in research: 1) research contribution : those who enroll in the study will be contributing to a project designed to gather generalizable knowledge to benefit others in the future; 2) research relationship : the investigators will rely on participants' efforts to gather the generalizable knowledge to benefit others; and 3) research impact : the extent to which participating in the study will alter what participants do and what happens to them.     

RESPECTING AUTONOMY WITHOUT DISCLOSING INFORMATION

There is widespread agreement that it would be both morally and legally wrong to treat a competent patient, or to carry out research with a competent participant, without the voluntary consent of that patient or research participant. Furthermore, in medical ethics it is generally taken that that consent must be informed. The most widely given reason for this has been that informed consent is needed to respect the patient's or research participant's autonomy. In this article I set out to challenge this claim by considering in detail each of the three most prominent ways in which ‘autonomy’ has been conceptualized in the medical ethics literature. I will argue that whilst these accounts support the claim that consent is needed if the treatment of competent patients, or research on competent individuals, is to respect their autonomy, they do not support the claim that informed consent is needed for this purpose.     

The adequacy of informed consent forms in genetic research in Oman: a pilot study

Genetic research presents ethical challenges to the achievement of valid informed consent, especially in developing countries with areas of low literacy. During the last several years, a number of genetic research proposals involving Omani nationals were submitted to the Department of Research and Studies, Ministry of Health, Oman. The objective of this paper is to report on the results of an internal quality assurance initiative to determine the extent of the information being provided in genetic research informed consent forms. In order to achieve this, we developed checklists to assess the inclusion of basic elements of informed consent as well as elements related to the collection and future storage of biological samples. Three of the authors independently evaluated and reached consensus on seven informed consent forms that were available for review. Of the seven consent forms, four had less than half of the basic elements of informed consent. None contained any information regarding whether genetic information relevant to health would be disclosed, whether participants may share in commercial products, the extent of confidentiality protections, and the inclusion of additional consent forms for future storage and use of tissue samples. Information regarding genetic risks and withdrawal of samples were rarely mentioned (1/7), whereas limits on future use of samples were mentioned in 3 of 7 consent forms. Ultimately, consent forms are not likely to address key issues regarding genetic research that have been recommended by research ethics guidelines. We recommend enhanced educational efforts to increase awareness, on the part of researchers, of information that should be included in consent forms.     

A proposal for the use of advance directives in the treatment of incompetent mentally ill persons

[M]y question is how these patients while competent might be able to give their own informed consent to treatment, despite being both unwilling and incompetent to do so when treatment is to be begun, thereby reducing the need to relax the dangerousness criteria for involuntary commitment. It is uncontroversial that the dangerousness requirement would be too restrictive for all treatment of mental illness. When competent patients voluntarily seek and/or accept treatment for their mental illness, neither public policy nor medical practice restricts treatment to those patients judged to be dangerous. Instead, criteria should be and generally are comparable to those for the treatment of physical illness -- whether the patient is ill, in this case mentally ill, and likely to benefit from treatment. Through use of advance directives, it would be possible for mentally ill persons who are currently refusing treatment to give prior consent, while competent and with their disease in remission, to treatment at a later time when they are incompetent, have become noncompliant, and are refusing treatment. My proposal is certainly not entirely novel, since others have made similar proposals under the heading of Ulysses contracts and voluntary commitment contracts. Addressing briefly some of the criticisms of these earlier proposals will bring out one fundamental difference between them and my proposal here for a new use of advance directives -- whether the patient must then be incompetent when the contract or directive made earlier is later invoked -- a difference I shall argue strongly favors my proposal.     

Consent’s dominion: Dementia and prior consent to sexual relations

In this paper, I answer the following question: suppose that two individuals, C and D, have been in a long‐term committed relationship, and D now has dementia, while C is competent; if D agrees to have sex with C, is it permissible for C to have sex with D? Ultimately, I defend the view that, under certain conditions, D can give valid consent to sex with C, rendering sex between them permissible. Specifically, I argue that there is compelling reason to endorse the Prior Consent Thesis, which states the following: D, when competent, can give valid prior consent to sex with her competent partner (C) that will take place after she has dementia, assuming that D is the same person as she was when she gave prior consent, meaning that, if D, when competent, gave prior consent to sex with C, then C may permissibly have sex with D. In Section 2, I explain both the background and the existing literature on this issue. In Section 3, I outline relevant stipulations about the kinds of cases I will be examining. In Section 4, I defend the Prior Consent Thesis. And, in Section 5, I address objections to the Prior Consent Thesis.     

A multimedia tool for the informed consent of patients prior to gastric banding

Objective: Severe obesity is a clear indication for appropriate, effective weight loss therapy. One option is operative intervention, e.g., gastric banding. Risks of the operation and therapeutic alternatives need to be comprehensibly presented to the patient. The literature has shown that better informed consent is obtained using information presented in a multimedia/video‐based format. The current study developed and evaluated a multimedia program aimed at obtaining informed consent from obese patients before gastric banding. Research Methods and Procedure: An interactive multimedia program was developed with information about preoperative examinations, the operation itself, hospital stay, operative risks, alternative therapies, and the pathophysiology and health risks of obesity. Two groups (Group 1, n = 20, mean age 38 years, informed consent attained with conventional document information; Group 2, n = 20, mean age 37 years, informed consent attained with additional multimedia information) were interviewed regarding comprehensibility of the information presented, personal satisfaction, and anxiety levels during the informed consent process. Results: Group 2 showed significantly better (p < 0.05) understanding of the presented information and higher levels of satisfaction with the informed consent process. Anxiety levels did not significantly differ between the two groups. Discussion: Because patient satisfaction with the informed consent process and understanding of the presented information significantly improved, the multimedia program clearly benefits both surgeons and patients. Personal contact from the surgeon remains essential. High volumes of information presented in multimedia format do not alleviate patient anxiety, and personal contact may be beneficial.     

Anonymity and informed consent in artificial procreation: a report from Denmark

The practice of informed consent in biomedicine is so widely spread that it must be considered the most important principle within bioethics, and the most universally appealed to within recent legislation. There seems to be a consensus as to its value in research on autonomous persons, but also a problem concerning its application when dealing with people having a serious mental, social or even physical disability.
Within the field of artificial procreation there are even more problems. Informed written consent is often demanded from anonymous donors of gametes in order to ensure their consent to the legal and moral consequences of their anonymity. The child resulting from the artificial procreation, on the contrary, cannot consent to, nor be informed before being conceived, of the secrecy laid on the identity of its genetic parents. Some countries resolve this problem by allowing the children, when they reach their majority, to obtain some information pertaining to the health or the identity of their genetic parents.
This presents ethical problems. It can be argued that the anonymity of the parents chiefly affects the children, so that an agreement on this point among parents, doctors and others must be regarded as invalid. The paper will argue that a law ensuring the complete anonymity of the parents is disregarding the informed consent and the interests of the children resulting from artificial procreation, and is thus doing more damage to society than good.     

Anonymity and Informed Consent in Artificial Procreation

The practice of informed consent in biomedicine is so widely spread that it must be considered the most important principle within bioethics, and the most universally appealed to within recent legislation. There seems to be a consensus as to its value in research on autonomous persons, but also a problem concerning its application when dealing with people having a serious mental, social or even physical disability.
Within the field of artificial procreation there are even more problems. Informed written consent is often demanded from anonymous donors of gametes in order to ensure their consent to the legal and moral consequences of their anonymity. The child resulting from the artificial procreation, on the contrary, cannot consent to, nor be informed before being conceived, of the secrecy laid on the identity of its genetic parents. Some countries resolve this problem by allowing the children, when they reach their majority, to obtain some information pertaining to the health or the identity of their genetic parents.
This presents ethical problems. It can be argued that the anonymity of the parents chiefly affects the children, so that an agreement on this point among parents, doctors and others must be regarded as invalid. The paper will argue that a law ensuring the complete anonymity of the parents is disregarding the informed consent and the interests of the children resulting from artificial procreation, and is thus doing more damage to society than good.     

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 by conversation with each prospective research subject. Facilitating discussion between people with common cultural backgrounds helps apply the Western approach to informed consent to communities 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.     

Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review

Background

The Nuremberg code defines the general ethical framework of medical research with participant consent as its cornerstone. In cluster randomized trials (CRT), obtaining participant informed consent raises logistic and methodologic concerns. First, with randomization of large clusters such as geographical areas, obtaining individual informed consent may be impossible. Second, participants in randomized clusters cannot avoid certain interventions, which implies that participant informed consent refers only to data collection, not administration of an intervention. Third, complete participant information may be a source of selection bias, which then raises methodological concerns. We assessed whether participant informed consent was required in such trials, which type of consent was required, and whether the trial was at risk of selection bias because of the very nature of participant information.

Methods and Findings

We systematically reviewed all reports of CRT published in MEDLINE in 2008 and surveyed corresponding authors regarding the nature of the informed consent and the process of participant inclusion. We identified 173 reports and obtained an answer from 113 authors (65.3%). In total, 23.7% of the reports lacked information on ethics committee approval or participant consent, 53.1% of authors declared that participant consent was for data collection only and 58.5% that the group allocation was not specified for participants. The process of recruitment (chronology of participant recruitment with regard to cluster randomization) was rarely reported, and we estimated that only 56.6% of the trials were free of potential selection bias.

Conclusions

For CRTs, the reporting of ethics committee approval and participant informed consent is less than optimal. Reports should describe whether participants consented for administration of an intervention and/or data collection. Finally, the process of participant recruitment should be fully described (namely, whether participants were informed of the allocation group before being recruited) for a better appraisal of the risk of selection bias.     

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the analytical (theoretical/philosophical) research

BackgroundConducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet, approaching the parents of these infants at such a difficult time raises challenges to obtaining valid informed consent for such research. In this study, we asked, What light does the analytical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to obtaining informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?MethodsIn a systematic search, we identified 30 studies. We began our analysis by applying philosophical frameworks, which were then refined as concepts emerged from the analytical studies, to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.ResultsBetween them, the studies addressed four themes. The first three were the ethical basis for parental informed consent for neonatal and/or perinatal research, the validity of parental consent in this context, and the range of possible options in methods for gaining consent. The last was the issue of risk and the possibility of a double-standard or asymmetry in the current approaches to the requirement for consent for research and consent for clinical treatment.ConclusionsIn addressing these issues, the analysed studies showed that, whilst there are a variety of possible defences for seeking parental ‘consent’ to neonatal and/or perinatal clinical trials, these are all consistent with the strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give (or decline) consent for such research. So far as the method of obtaining consent is concerned, none of the existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory, and there are philosophical reasons for supposing that at least some parents will fail to give valid consent in a neonatal context. Furthermore, in giving parental ‘consent’ in a perinatal context, parents are authorising infant participation, not giving ‘proxy consent’. Finally, there are reasons for giving weight to both parental ‘consent’ and the infant’s best interests in both research and clinical treatment. However, there are also reasons to treat these factors differently in the two contexts, and this may be partly due to the differing relevance of risk in each case. A significant gap is the lack of any detailed discussion of a process of emergency and/or urgent ‘assent’, in which parents assent or refuse their baby’s participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to continuing participation and follow-up.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1562-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Consenting to donation: an examination of current practices in informed consent for tissue donation in the US

Informed consent is the primary moral principle guiding the donation of human tissue for transplant purposes. When patients’ donation wishes are not known, family members making the decision about tissue donation should be provided with requisite information needed to make informed donation decisions. Using a unique dataset of 1,016 audiotaped requests for tissue obtained from 15 US tissue banking organizations, we examined whether the information provided to families considering tissue donation met current standards for informed consent. The results indicated that many elements of informed consent were missing from the donation discussions, including the timeframe for procurement, autopsy issues, the involvement of both for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and the processing, storage and distribution of donated tissue. A multiple linear regression analysis also revealed that nonwhites and family members of increased age received less information regarding tissue donation than did younger, white decision makers. Recommendations for improving the practice of obtaining consent to tissue donation are provided.     

PROCESS FOR OBTAINING INFORMED CONSENT: WOMEN’S OPINIONS

In Brazil, every study involving human beings is required to produce an informed consent form that must be signed by study participants: this is stated in Resolution 196/96. 1 Consent must be obtained through a specific structured process. Objective: To present the opinions of women regarding how the process of obtaining informed consent should be conducted when women are invited to participate in studies on contraceptive methods. Subjects and Methods: Eight focus groups were conducted, involving a total of 51 women living in the metropolitan region of Campinas. The women involved in the study were either participating in a clinical trial in the area of women’s health or had participated in such a trial in the previous 12 months. A thematic guide was used to conduct the focus group discussions; the discussions were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Results: In general, the person who invites a woman to participate in a study should be a member of the research team but not the principal investigator. Information relating to the study should be given orally and in writing, both individually and in the group setting. Study volunteers should be informed about, among other things, the risks, possible side effects and discomforts, including long‐term effects. The use of audiovisual aids to provide information was suggested. Conclusion: The process for obtaining informed consent was seen as a means of establishing a relationship between the volunteers and the investigator/research team. The information that the study participants expected to be given coincides with the requirements established under Resolution 196/96. The use of audiovisual aids would improve understanding of the information provided.     

An Evaluation of “Informed Consent” with Volunteer Prisoner Subjects

“Informed consent” sets a goal for investigators experimenting with human subjects, but little is known about how to achieve or evaluate it in an experiment. In a 3-year, double-blind study with incarcerated men, we attempted to provide a “free and informed consent” and evaluated our efforts with an unannounced questionnaire administered to subjects after they completed the experiment. At that time, approximately two-thirds had sufficient information for an informed consent, but only one-third was well informed about all key aspects of the experiment and one-third was insufficiently informed to give an informed consent. We found that institution- or study-based coercion was minimal in our experiment. From our evaluation of the questionnaire and experience at the study institution, we conclude that an experiment with human subjects should be designed to include an ongoing evaluation of informed consent, and active attempts should be made to avoid or minimize coercive inducements. Experiments with significant risk, which require a long duration and/or large sample size relative to the institution's population, should probably not be performed on prisoner subjects. The experimenter should be independent of the penal institution's power structure. Presenting and explaining a consent form to volunteers on one occasion is probably an in adequate procedure for obtaining and maintaining an informed consent.     

Can women in labor give informed consent to epidural analgesia?

There are reasons to believe that decision‐making capacity (mental competence) of women in labor may be compromised in relation to giving informed consent to epidural analgesia. Not only severe labor pain, but also stress, anxiety, and premedication of analgesics such as opioids, may influence women’s decisional capacity. Decision‐making capacity is a complex construct involving cognitive and emotional components which cannot be reduced to ‘understanding’ alone. A systematic literature search identified a total of 20 empirical studies focused on women’s decision‐making about epidural analgesia for labor pain. Our review of these studies suggests that empirical evidence to date is insufficient to determine whether women undergoing labor are capable of consenting to epidural analgesia. Given such uncertainties, sufficient information about pain management should be provided as part of prenatal education and the consent process must be carefully conducted to enhance women’s autonomy. To fill in the significant gap in clinical knowledge about laboring women’s decision‐making capacity, well‐designed prospective and retrospective studies may be required.     

Addiction,Voluntary Choice,and Informed Consent: A Reply to Uusitalo and Broers

In an earlier article in this journal I argued that the question of whether heroin addicts can give voluntary consent to take part in research which involves giving them a choice of free heroin does not – in contrast with a common assumption in the bioethics literature – depend exclusively on whether or not they possess the capacity to resist their desire for heroin. In some cases, circumstances and beliefs might undermine the voluntariness of the choices a person makes even if they do possess a capacity for self‐control. Based on what I took to be a plausible definition of voluntariness, I argued that the circumstances and beliefs typical of many vulnerable heroin addicts are such that we have good reasons to suspect they cannot give voluntary consent to take part in such research, even assuming their desire for heroin is not irresistible. In a recent article in this journal, Uusitalo and Broers object to this on the grounds that I misdescribe heroin addicts' options set, that the definition of voluntariness on which I rely is unrealistic and too demanding, and, more generally, that my view of heroin addiction is flawed. I think their arguments derive from a misunderstanding of the view I expressed in my article. In what follows I hope therefore to clarify my position.     

On the Alleged Right to Participate in High‐Risk Research

Reigning regulatory frameworks for biomedical research impose on researchers and research ethics committees an obligation to protect research participants from risks that are unnecessary, disproportionate to potential research benefits, and non‐minimized. Where the research has no potential to produce results of direct benefit to the subjects and the subjects are unable to give consent, these requirements are strengthened by an additional condition, that risks should not exceed a certain minimal threshold. In this article, I address the question of whether there should be limits of permissible risks in non‐therapeutic research involving competent and healthy subjects. Some commentators argue that competent and informed individuals should have a right to participate even in extremely risky research and that research ethics committees should never reject studies because they are too dangerous. To use David Shaw's expression, competent volunteers should have ‘a right to participate in high‐risk research’. I argue that this idea is ill‐founded, as it does not take into account the social mission and complex collaborative nature of research practice as well as the inequity of power between researchers and subjects. Imposition of limits on permissible risks for healthy volunteers is justified by the need to protect research enterprise and the need to protect the weaker party, namely the subjects. Also, I suggest that the best way to set boundaries on research risks is to leave the judgment of risk acceptability to research ethics committees.