Rationing, randomizing, and researching in health care provision.
(49/494)
In this paper the need for valid evidence of the cost-effectiveness of treatments that have not been properly evaluated, yet are already available, albeit in short supply, are examined. Such treatments cannot be withdrawn, pending proper evaluation, nor can they be made more widely available until they have been shown to be cost-effective. As a solution to this impasse the argument put forward recently by Toroyan et al is discussed. They say that randomised controlled trials of such resources could be done but only if resources are randomly allocated independently of a research context. Relevant outcome data could then be collected for research, given this opportunity. (There are already a few investigators who have turned limited resources, mostly health service provision, to their advantage in this way.) We agree. We disagree with Toroyan et al on a number of points. First, they claim that no ethical issue relating to equipoise arises. We disagree and this disagreement depends on our showing that equipoise should be maintained in a relationship that they do not consider. Secondly, they say that consent to data collection is always needed. Again we disagree. Thirdly, they claim that the previous two issues are the only possible ethical issues that could arise. We argue, instead, that there is a further conflict of interests that has ethical import. (+info)
Who is my brother's keeper?
(50/494)
Clinical and research practices designed by developed countries are often implemented in host nations of the Third World. In recent years, a number of papers have presented a diversity of arguments to justify these practices which include the defence of research with placebos even though best proven treatments exist; the distribution of drugs unapproved in their country of origin; withholding of existing therapy in order to observe the natural course of infection and disease; redefinition of equipoise to a more bland version, and denial of post-trial benefits to research subjects. These practices have all been prohibited in developed, sponsoring countries, even though they invariably have pockets of poverty where conditions comparable to the Third World prevail. Furthermore, the latest update of the Declaration of Helsinki clearly decries double ethical standards in research protocols. Under these circumstances, it does not seem appropriate that First World scholars should propose and defend research and clinical practices with less stringent ethical standards than those mandatory in their own countries. Recent years have witnessed frequent reports of less stringent ethical standards being applied to both clinical and research medical practices, for the most part in the field of drug trials and drug marketing, initiated by developed countries in poorer nations. Still more unsettling, a number of articles have endorsed the policy of employing ethical norms in these host countries, which would be unacceptable to both the legislations and the moral standards of the sponsor nations. Also, these reformulations often contravene the Declaration of Helsinki or one of its updates. This paper is not so much concerned with the actual practices, which have been subjected to frequent scrutiny and publicly decried when gross misconduct occurred. Rather, my concern relates to the approval and support such practices have found in the literature on bioethics from authors who might be expected to use their energy and scholarship to explore and endorse the universalisability of ethics rather than to develop ad hoc arguments that would allow exceptions and variations from accepted moral standards. To this purpose, issue will be taken with arguments in three fields: medical and pharmaceutical practices, research strategies, and local application of research results. (+info)
Patients' perceptions of information provided in clinical trials.
(51/494)
BACKGROUND: According to the Declaration of Helsinki, patients who take part in a clinical trial must be adequately informed about the trial's aims, methods, expected benefits, and potential risks. The declaration does not, however, elaborate on what "adequately informed" might amount to, in practice. Medical researchers and Local Research Ethics Committees attempt to ensure that the information which potential participants are given is pitched at an appropriate level, but few studies have considered whether the patients who take part in such trials feel they have been given adequate information, or whether they feel able to understand that information. OBJECTIVES: To explore trial participants' views (i) on the amount of information provided, and (ii) of their own understanding of that information. DESIGN: Structured interviews of patients participating in clinical trials for the treatment of chronic medical condition. FINDINGS: Patients generally felt they were given an appropriate amount of information, and that they were able to understand all or most of it. They felt they were given adequate time to ask questions before agreeing to take part. In comparison with treatment given out with the research setting, patients generally felt they received more information when participating in a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers sometimes complain that patients are given too much information during clinical trials, and have limited understanding of that information. The present study shows that this perception is not necessarily shared by patients. More research is needed in this area, particularly to gauge whether patient understanding is indeed accurate. (+info)
Subgroups of refusers in a disability prevention trial in older adults: baseline and follow-up analysis.
(52/494)
OBJECTIVES: This study explored differences between refusers and participants in a longitudinal study with extensive baseline and follow-up information. METHODS: Results of a trial comparing 791 participants and 401 community-residing older adults who refused to participate in a study concerning preventive home visits were examined. Information was collected from interviews, insurance records, and government files. RESULTS: Despite similarities in terms of age, sex, and self-perceived health at baseline, 3-year follow-up data indicated that refusers had a 1.58-fold higher risk of entering a nursing home than participants. There were additional differences between refusers and participants when refusers were categorized in 4 subgroups based on self-reported reason for refusal (too ill, too healthy, no interest, and other reasons). CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should include follow-up data to allow comparisons between refusers and participants and should address the presence of multiple subgroups of refusers. (+info)
Protecting subjects' interests in genetics research.
(53/494)
Biomedical researchers often assume that sponsors, subjects, families, and disease-associated advocacy groups contribute to research solely because of altruism. This view fails to capture the diverse interests of many participants in the emerging research enterprise. In the past two decades, patient groups have become increasingly active in the promotion and facilitation of genetics research. Simultaneously, a significant shift of academic biomedical science toward commercialization has occurred, spurred by U.S. federal policy changes. The concurrent rise in both the roles that subjects play and the commercial interests they have presents numerous ethical challenges. We examine the interests of different research participants, finding that these interests are not addressed by current policies and practices. We conclude that all participants should be given a voice in decisions affecting ownership, access to, and use of commercialized products and services, and that researchers and institutions should negotiate issues relating to control of research results and the sharing of benefits before the research is performed. (+info)
Infectious disease experimentation involving human volunteers.
(54/494)
The current care of patients with infectious diseases owes a tremendous debt to healthy volunteers who allowed investigators to induce disease in them for the study of transmission, natural history, and treatment. We reviewed the English-language medical literature about the rarely discussed subject of the use of healthy volunteers in human-subject research in infectious diseases to determine the contributions of these experiments to the current understanding of disease transmission. The literature review focused on hepatitis, upper respiratory infections, and malaria, which represent the array of issues involved in this type of research. Researchers successfully induced infection through injecting, nebulizing, and feeding specimens to thousands of volunteers, who included authentic volunteers as well as soldiers and imprisoned subjects. These volunteers often undertook unforeseen and unpredictable risks during these experiments for the benefit of others. Future research in these areas must strike an adequate balance between the risks to participants and the benefits to society. (+info)
Ethics of qualitative research: are there special issues for health services research?
(55/494)
BACKGROUND: An increasing volume of qualitative research and articles about qualitative methods has been published recently in medical journals. However, compared with the extensive debate in social sciences literature, there has been little consideration in medical journals of the ethical issues surrounding qualitative research. A possible explanation for this lack of discussion is that it is assumed commonly that qualitative research is unlikely to cause significant harm to participants. There are no agreed guidelines for judging the ethics of qualitative research proposals and there is some evidence that medical research ethics committees have difficulty making these judgements. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to consider the ethical issues which arise when planning and carrying out qualitative research into health and health care, and to offer a framework within which health services researchers can consider these issues. RESULTS: Four potential risks to research participants are discussed: anxiety and distress; exploitation; misrepresentation; and identification of the participant in published papers, by themselves or others. Recommended strategies for reducing the risk of harm include ensuring scientific soundness, organizing follow-up care where appropriate, considering obtaining consent as a process, ensuring confidentiality and taking a reflexive stance towards analysis. CONCLUSIONS: While recognizing the reservations held about strict ethical guidelines for qualitative research, we argue for further debate of these issues so that the health services research community can move towards the adoption of agreed standards of good practice. In addition, we suggest that empirical research is desirable in order to quantify the actual risks to participants in qualitative studies. (+info)
Darkness in El Dorado: human genetics on trial.
(56/494)
A recent book by a freelance journalist makes major accusations against genetic studies by J. V. Neel in the Amazon a generation ago. Contrary to these charges, there was no connection of Neel's work with human experiments conducted by the Rochester Manhattan project twenty years earlier, nor did the studies serve as a control for survivors of the atomic bombs in Japan. Neel was not a eugenicist. His program of measles vaccination reduced mortality, and was not in any sense an experiment. Given the passage of time and lack of supporting evidence, further investigation of these charges is pointless. However, the political climate in which human populations are studied has changed dramatically over the last generation. Unless guidelines reflect an international consensus, the benefits of population studies to human welfare and science will be jeopardized. The World Health Organization guidelines should be extended to cover current research. (+info)