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.     

Informed consent and public health

During the past 25 years, medical ethics has concentrated largely on clinical medicine and the treatment of individual patients. This focus permits a view of medical provision as a (quasi-) consumer good, whose distribution can be or should be contingent on individual choice. The approach cannot be extended to public health provision. Public health provision, including measures for limiting the spread of infectious diseases, is a public good and can be provided for some only if provided for many. The provision or non-provision of public goods cannot be contingent on individual informed consent, so must be in some respects compulsory. An adequate ethics of public health needs to set aside debates about informed consent and to consider the permissible limits of just compulsion for various types of public good. It will therefore gain more from engaging with work in political philosophy than with individualistic work in ethics.     

Informed consent to tissue donation: policies and practice

Nearly 10 years ago, the tissue industry’s informed consent practices with donor families in the United States were criticized. In response, the industry, along with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, suggested elements to be included in the informed consent process. This study examines which of these elements were present in the informed consent documents of 45 (78%) of the nation’s 58 Organ Procurement Organizations (OPOs). Some elements, such as involvement of for-profit companies, were present in almost all. Others, such as labeling tissue as a gift from donor families, never were. The authors conclude that the time is ripe for reexamination of the informed consent process with an eye to meaningful consent that promotes the benefits of tissue transplantation and at the same time protects the rights and interests of donor families; can be realistically implemented; and, maintains the trust of the American public.     

Informed consent and ethical re-use of African genomic data

Rapid advances in human genomic research are increasing the availability of genomic data for secondary analysis. Particularly in the case of vulnerable African populations, ethics and informed consent processes need to be transparent-both to ensure participant protection, as well as to share skills and to evolve best practice for informed consent from a shared knowledge base. An open dialogue between all stakeholders can facilitate this.     

Informed consent and the misattributed paternity problem in genetic counseling

When misattributed paternity is discovered in the course of genetic testing, a genetic counselor is presented with a dilemma concerning whether to reveal this information to the clients. She is committed to treating the clients equally and enabling informed decision making, but disclosing the information may carry consequences for the woman that the counselor cannot judge in advance. A frequent suggestion aimed at avoiding this problem is to include the risk of discovering nonpaternity in the informed consent process for counseling. In this paper I argue that such a move does not resolve the problem, because the conflict hinges on the interpretation of equality on which the counselor operates. Given the principles of genetic counseling, neither construal of equality yields a satisfactory solution to the conflict. In fact, I conclude that including nonpaternity in informed consent is not endorsed by either view, and we are still left with the question of what to do should nonpaternity be discovered. I suggest a compromise position concerning disclosure, involving revealing relevant genetic information but withholding nonpaternity when possible.     

Informed consent and genomic incidental findings: IRB chair perspectives

It is unclear how genomic incidental finding (GIF) prospects should be addressed in informed consent processes. An exploratory study on this topic was conducted with 34 purposively sampled Chairs of institutional review boards (IRBs) at centers conducting genome-wide association studies. Most Chairs (96%) reported no knowledge of local IRB requirements regarding GIFs and informed consent. Chairs suggested consent processes should address the prospect of, and study disclosure policy on, GIFs; GIF management and follow-up; potential clinical significance of GIFs; potential risks of GIF disclosure; an opportunity for participants to opt out of GIF disclosure; and duration of the researcher's duty to disclose GIFs. Chairs were concerned about participant disclosure preferences changing over time; inherent limitations in determining the scope and accuracy of claims about GIFs; and making consent processes longer and more complex. IRB Chair and other stakeholder perspectives can help advance informed consent efforts to accommodate GIF prospects.     

Informed consent and collaborative research: perspectives from the developing world

Introduction: Informed consent has been recognized as an important component of research protocols and procedures of disclosure and consent in collaborative research have been criticized, as they may not be in keeping with cultural norms of developing countries. This study, which is part of a larger project funded by the United States National Bioethics Advisory Commission, explores the opinions of developing country researchers regarding informed consent in collaborative research. Methods: A survey of developing country researchers, involved in human subject research, was conducted by distributing a questionnaire with 169 questions, which included questions relating to informed consent. In addition, six focus group discussions, eight in-depth interviews and 78 responses to open-ended questions in the questionnaire provided qualitative data. Results: 203 surveys were considered complete and were included in the analysis. Written consent was not used by nearly 40% of the researchers in their most recent studies. A large proportion of respondents recommended that human subject regulations should allow more flexibility in ways of documenting informed consent. 84% of researchers agreed that a mechanism to measure understanding should be incorporated in research studies as part of the process of informed consent. Discussion: This paper is an empirical step in highlighting the ethical issues concerning disclosure. Health researchers in developing countries are well aware of the importance of consent in health research, and equally value the significance of educating human subjects regarding study protocols and associated risks and benefits. However, respondents emphasize the need for modifying ethical regulations in collaborative research.