Informed Consent and Genetic Information

In the last 25 years writing in bioethics, particularly in medical ethics, has generally claimed that action is ethically acceptable only if it receives informed consent from those affected. However, informed consent provides only limited justification, and may provide even less as new information technologies are used to store and handle personal data, including personal genetic data. The central philosophical weakness of relying on informed consent procedures for ethical justification is that consent is a propositional attitude, so referentially opaque: consent is given to specific propositions describing limited aspects of a situation, and does not transfer even to closely related propositions. Assembling genetic data in databases creates additional difficulties for ethical justification. This is not because genetic information is intrinsically exceptional, but because the merger of genetic and information technologies make it possible to assemble massive quantities of complex information that defeat individuals' best efforts to grasp what is at stake, or to give or withhold informed consent. The future agenda for bioethics will need to take account of both these limitations of appeals to informed consent.     

Medical Ghostwriting and Informed Consent

Ghostwriting in its various forms has received critical scrutiny from medical ethicists, journal editors, and science studies scholars trying to explain where ghostwriting goes wrong and ascertain how to counter it. Recent analyses have characterized ghostwriting as plagiarism or fraud, and have urged that it be deterred through stricter compliance with journal submission requirements, conflict of interest disclosures, author‐institutional censure, legal remedies, and journals' refusal to publish commercially sponsored articles. As a supplement to such efforts, this paper offers a critical assessment of medical ghostwriting as contrary to good patient care, on the grounds that it contradicts established general principles guiding clinical ethics. Specifically, I argue that ghostwriting undermines trust relationships between authors and their readers, and between these readers and their trusting patients, and in so doing contradicts the duty of respect for patient autonomy by obstructing informed consent. For this reason, complicity in ghostwriting practices should be understood as a violation of the professional ethical duties of physicians and other healthcare workers.     

The Nocebo Effect of Informed Consent

The nocebo effect, the mirror‐phenomenon to the placebo effect, is when the expectation of a negative outcome precipitates the corresponding symptom or leads to its exacerbation. One of the basic ethical duties in health care is to obtain informed consent from patients before treatment; however, the disclosure of information regarding potential complications or side effects that this involves may precipitate a nocebo effect. While dilemmas between the principles of respect for patient autonomy and of nonmaleficence are recognized in medical ethics, there has not yet been an ethical discussion focused on the potential dilemma raised by the nocebo effect of informed consent (NEIC). This dilemma is especially pernicious, since it involves a direct causality of harm by the caregiver that is unparalleled by other potential harmful effects of information disclosure. This paper articulates the dilemma of the NEIC and offers a seminal ethical analysis.     

Informed Consent in California: Latent Liability Without `Negligence'

Informed consent is a legal obligation due from a physician to his patient, an obligation which may not be met by the physician''s skillful treatment of his patient. It may only be met by the treating physician obtaining from his patient knowing authorization for carrying out the intended medical procedure. The physician is required to disclose whatever would be material to his patient''s decision, including the nature and purpose of the procedure, and the risks and alternatives. The disclosures should be made by the physician to his patient, and not through use of consent forms which are not particular to individual patients. To minimize any subsequent claim by the patient that there was a lack of adequate disclosures, the physician should record in the patient''s chart the circumstances of the patient''s consent, and should not rely on the patient''s unreliable ability to recall those circumstances.     

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.     

Infants,Children, and Informed Consent

Obtaining informed consent for non-therapeutic experimentation on infants and children has ethical and legal implications that cause great controversy. There is some danger that worthy research will be inhibited if current ethical codes are interpreted too strictly, yet infants, children, and other vulnerable groups clearly must be protected from exploitation as research subjects. It is suggested that permission from parents coupled with integrity of the investigator will remain the child''s best protection, but several additional protective mechanisms are available and should be used. Some guidelines for non-therapeutic research are suggested which should not only provide adequate protection for infants and young children involved in research projects, but allow investigators reasonable freedom to prosecute worthy research vital to continued improvements in child care.     

The Role of Regret in Informed Consent

Informed consent to medical procedures tends to be construed in terms of principle-based ethics and one or other form of expected utility theory. These constructions leave problems created by imperfect communication; subjective distress and other emotions; imperfect knowledge and incomplete understanding; complexity, and previous experience or the lack of it. There is evidence that people giving consent to therapy or to research participation act intuitively and assess consequences holistically, being influenced more by the magnitude of outcomes than their probability. People avoid decisions they may regret, but modern regret theory has received little attention in discussions of informed consent. This essay suggests ways in which regret may be acknowledged in the consent process and in the assessment of the information that is an intrinsic part of it.     

Voluntary Informed Consent in Paediatric Oncology Research

In paediatric oncology, research and treatments are often closely combined, which may compromise voluntary informed consent of parents. We identified two key scenarios in which voluntary informed consent for paediatric oncology studies is potentially compromised due to the intertwinement of research and care. The first scenario is inclusion by the treating paediatric oncologist, the second scenario concerns treatments confined to the research context. In this article we examine whether voluntary informed consent of parents for research is compromised in these two scenarios, and if so whether this is also morally problematic. For this, we employ the account of voluntary consent from Nelson and colleagues, who assert that voluntary consent requires substantial freedom from controlling influences. We argue that, in the absence of persuasion or manipulation, inclusion by the treating physician does not compromise voluntariness. However, it may function as a risk factor for controlling influence as it narrows the scope within which parents make decisions. Furthermore, physician appeal to reciprocity is not controlling as it constitutes persuasion. In addition, framing information is a form of informational manipulation and constitutes a controlling influence. In the second scenario, treatments confined to the research context qualify as controlling if the available options are restricted through manipulation of options. Although none of the influences is morally problematic in itself, a combination of influences may create morally problematic instances of involuntary informed consent. Therefore, safeguards should be implemented to establish an optimal environment for parents to provide voluntary informed consent in an integrated research‐care context.     

From Chattel to Consenter: Adolescents and Informed Consent: 2009 Grover Powers Lecture

Angela Holder was to give the Grover Powers Memorial Lecture at the weekly Grand Rounds conducted by the Yale Department of Pediatrics on Wednesday, May 27, 2009, but unfortunately, she died one month earlier, on April 22, leaving behind her prepared address, “From Chattel to Consenter: Adolescents and Informed Consent,” which she had regarded as the pinnacle of a remarkable career, much of it spent at Yale. As the Grover Powers honoree, the department’s highest honor, Ms. Holder was only the fourth woman of 46 recipients and the first who was not a physician. On the date scheduled for her address, tributes were presented by her son, John Holder, and her longtime colleague, Dr. Robert Levine, co-founder of Yale’s Interdisciplinary Bioethics Center. Their comments follow Angela Holder’s completed but undelivered Grover Powers address. — Myron Genel, MD, Professor Emeritus of PediatricsUnder the common law of England and in the early years of the United States, a minor (defined as anyone under 21) was a chattel or possession of his or her father [1-4]. A father had the right to sue a physician who treated his son or daughter perfectly properly but without the father’s permission because such an intervention contravened the father’s right to control the child. Beginning in the early years of the 20th century, by the end of World War II and into the 1950s, the notion that a 16-year-old was a legally different entity from a 6-year-old gradually became law in all states.¹ The first hospital unit for adolescents was created in 1951 at Boston Children’s Hospital, and the concept of “adolescent medicine” was born [5].As the law in this area currently defines “adolescent,” we are discussing someone 14 or older who may be (1) living at home with his or her parents; (2) Not living at home but still dependent on parents (i.e., a 16-year-old college freshman living in a dorm); (3) an “emancipated minor” who is married, emancipated by a court order, or a parent (other than in North Carolina), living away from home and self-supporting; or (4) a runaway or throwaway. At any time in this country, there are about 200,000 adolescents living on the streets with no adult supervision or involvement [6].Regardless of the age of the patient, informed consent consists of five elements: (1) An explanation of what will happen; (2) explanation of the risks; (3) explanation of the projected benefits; (4) alternatives (including doing nothing); and (5) why the physician thinks it should be done, which I interpret as a right to know one’s diagnosis. While the doctrine of “therapeutic privilege” means that in rare cases a physician may withhold some information from an adult patient if she or he believes the patient cannot “deal with the information,” there can never be any withholding of information from an adolescent. If the patient can’t deal with the information to be presented, then parents have to be involved and give permission to treat the adolescent.In some cases, when parents are involved, they do not want their adolescent to know his or her diagnosis. While this is usually not a good idea, it normally falls under the rubric of “professional judgment,” and the physician has every right to decide to follow the parents’ instruction if she agrees with it. In some situations, however, the adolescent must be told what his or her illness is, whether parents like it or not. For example, if a teenager is HIV positive, he or she must be told, must be instructed about safe sex, and must be asked to divulge the names of any sex partners. Parents who say, “Oh, no, don’t tell him, he would never do anything like that, so it doesn’t matter,” should be tactfully but firmly led to accept the fact that he may well have and if he hasn’t yet, he will certainly in the future. There has been at least one successful malpractice case in which the physician did not, at the request of the parents, tell his adolescent patient that he had HIV. The patient’s girlfriend caught it and sued the physician [7]. I feel sure there are many more cases like this that have been quietly settled and no one will ever hear about.Usually, questions about adolescents giving consent to treatments that their parents don’t know about involve outpatient treatment. In the first place, hospital administrators, who are much more interested in getting paid than they are in advancing the rights of autonomous adolescents, are not going to admit for a non-emergency problem a minor whose parent has not made some sort of financial arrangement to pay for it. Secondly, in most households, if Little Herman doesn’t show up for supper or throughout the evening, someone notices and a few telephone calls later discovers that Little Herman is in the hospital.     

Research, Informed Consent, and the Limits of Disclosure

According to this paper, respect for informed consent implies that subjects should often be told a good deal more than ethical guidelines explicitly or implicitly require. Unless subjects are informed of the researchers' personal characteristics, views, and sponsors whenever they would be likely to consider them significant, their autonomy is being overridden. However, overriding subjects' autonomy is sometimes required by the interests of researchers in not being discriminated against or suffering intrusions into their privacy. This paper resolves the conflict between informed consent and the interests of researchers by recommending that (i) subjects generally should be told of the personal characteristics of researchers when relevant as part of the researchers' job and (ii) that subjects should be told of researchers' views when conceptually connected to the research and (iii) that subjects should almost always be told about sponsorship. While the paper explicitly limits the role of informed consent, these recommendations go significantly beyond most guidelines in their requirements about what information should be disclosed.     

A Proposed Approach to Informed Consent for Biobanks in China

Biobanks are potential goldmines for genomics research. They have become increasingly common as a means to determine the relationship between lifestyle, environmental exposures and predisposition to genetic disease. More and more countries are developing massive national scale biobanks, including Iceland, the UK and Estonia. Now several large‐scale regional and national biobanks are planned in China, such as Shanghai Biobank, which is defined as a key‐element in Shanghai's twelfth five‐year Development Plan of Science and Technology. It is imperative that the authors who are in charge of the ethical aspect of Shanghai Biobank discuss the ethical aspects of these biobanks up front. Currently there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the approaches to informed consent taken by different countries. In the article, after briefly introducing the biobanks in China, we focus on the three most common approaches: classical informed consent, tiered consent, and one‐time general (or blanket) consent, and propose a version of the latter for China, based on compelling arguments.     

自愿捐赠移植器官的知情同意权问题的探讨

自从人体器官移植技术开展以来,器官捐赠已经成为器官来源的最重要的途径和方式。随着该项技术的广泛开展,规范了器官捐赠行为,使器官捐赠者的自主权得到有效合法保护,捐赠者的知情权和同意权得到全面履行,从而提高捐赠者参与社会捐赠的积极性,以便解决器官需求紧缺状况。     

Western Notions of Informed Consent and Indigenous Cultures: Australian Findings at the Interface

Despite the extensive consideration the notion of informed consent has heralded in recent decades, the unique considerations pertaining to the giving of informed consent by and on behalf of Indigenous Australians have not been comprehensively explored; to the contrary, these issues have been scarcely considered in the literature to date. This deficit is concerning, given that a fundamental premise of the doctrine of informed consent is that of individual autonomy, which, while privileged as a core value of non-Indigenous Australian culture, is displaced in Indigenous cultures by the honouring of the family unit and community group, rather than the individual, as being at the core of important decision-making processes relating to the person. To address the hiatus in the bioethical literature on issues relating to informed consent for Aboriginal peoples, the following article provides findings from a two-year research project, funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), conducted in the Northern Territory. The findings, situated in the context of the literature on cultural safety, highlight the difference between the Aboriginal and biomedical perspectives on informed consent.     

Best Practice Guidelines on Informed Consent for Weight Loss Surgery Patients

Objective: To provide evidence‐based guidelines on informed consent and the education that underlies it for legally competent, severely obese weight loss surgery (WLS) patients. Research Methods and Procedures: We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature published on MEDLINE between 1984 and 2004. Three articles focused on informed consent for WLS; none was based on empirical studies. We summarized each paper and assigned evidence categories according to a grading system derived from established evidence‐based models. We also relied on informed consent and educational materials from six WLS programs in Massachusetts. All evidence is Category D. Recommendations were based on a review of the available literature, informed consent materials from WLS programs, and expert opinion. Results: This Task Group found that the informed consent process contributes to long‐term outcome in multiple ways but is governed by limited legal requirements. We focused our report on the legal and ethical issues related to informed consent, i.e., disclosure vs. comprehension. Recommendations centered on the importance of assessing patient comprehension of informed consent materials, the content of those materials, and the use of active teaching/learning techniques to promote understanding. Discussion: Although demonstrated comprehension is not a legal requirement for informed consent in Massachusetts or other states, the members of this Task Group found that the best interests of WLS patients, providers, and facilities are served when clinicians engage patients in active learning and collaborative decision making.     

Rethinking Informed Consent in Research on Heroin‐Assisted Treatment

Can heroin addicts give consent to research on trials in which heroin is prescribed to them? Analyses of addicts and informed consent have been objects of debate in several articles. Informed consent requires the agent not only to be competent but also to give consent voluntarily. This has been questioned because of alleged features of heroin addiction. Until recently the discussion has focused on heroin addicts' desires for heroin, whether these are irresistible and thus pose a problem for giving consent. Still, in light of empirical evidence, there seems to be a consensus more or less that the problem is not whether the addicts can resist their desire for heroin. A recent article concentrates specifically on heroin addicts' false assumptions of options and voluntariness. We argue that the prevailing framing of the options in this discussion in terms of heroin and access to it is problematic. The way in which the options are typically laid out suggests an assumption that participation in the research is allegedly based on the addicts' views on using the drug. We argue that this way of presenting the options is, first, a mismatch to the studies carried out and, second, symptomatic of potential misconceptions about heroin addiction and addicts. Furthermore, we also suggest that the account of voluntariness needs to be realistic in order for subjects to be able to give consent voluntarily in actual situations, and for medical research to carry out studies on improving outcomes in addiction treatment in an ethical way.     

Informed Consent in Cross-cultural Perspective: Clinical Research in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, PRC

Procedures of Informed Consent are considered a high priority for international biomedical research. However, informed consent protocols are not necessarily transferable across cultural, national or ethnic groups. Recent debates identify the need for balancing ethical universals with practical and local conditions and paying attention to questions of cultural competence when it comes to the Informed Consent process for clinical biomedical research. This article reports on the results of a two-year effort to establish a culturally appropriate Informed Consent process for biomedical research in the Tibet Autonomous Region in the People's Republic of China. A team of Tibetan and American researchers, physicians, health professionals and medical anthropologists conducted the research. The Informed Consent was specifically for undertaking a triple-blind, double placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of a Tibetan medicine compared with Misoprostol for reducing postpartum blood loss. The findings suggest greater need for flexibility and cooperation in establishing Informed Consent protocols across cultures and nations.     

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.