Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Informed Consent in Emergency Research: A Contradiction in Terms

  • Orginal Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Improving the treatment of life threatening emergency illness or disease requires that new or novel therapies be assessed in clinical trials. As most subjects for these trials will be incapacitated there is some controversy about they might best protected whilst still allowing research to continue. Recent European and UK clinical trials legislation, which has effectively stopped research into emergency conditions, is discussed. Possible changes to these regulations are proposed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. CRASH is an abbreviation for “Corticosteroid Randomisation After Significant Head Injury”. For further information see: http://www.crash.lshtm.ac.uk/

References

  1. Historical Origins of the Nuremberg Code. (1992). In G. J. Annas & M. A. Grodin (Eds.), The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code. Oxford University Press.

  2. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki; http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm; Accessed 13th November 2006.

  3. Governance Arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees, Department of Health 2001; http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/05/86/09/04058609.pdf; Accessed 13th November 2006.

  4. MRC CRASH Trial National Coordinators. (2003). Update on progress in the international, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of corticosteroids after significant head injury. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 9, 92–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Eckmans, T., Bessert, J., Behnhe, M., Galtmeier, P., & Rűda, H. (2006). Compliance with antiseptic hand rub use in intensive care units: The Hawthorne effect. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 27, 931–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990; www.fha.org/acrobat/Patients%20Self%20Determination%20Act%201990.pdf; Accessed 12th November 2006.

  7. Adults with incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000; www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2000/20000004.htm; Accessed 12th November 2006.

  8. Sulmasy, D. P., Haller, K., & Terry, P. B. (1994). More talk, less paper: Predicting the accuracy of substituted judgments. American Journal of Medicine, 96, 432–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shalowitz, D. I., Garret-Mayer, E., & Wendler, D. (2006). The accuracy of surrogate decision makers: A systemic review. Archive of Internal Medicine, 166, 493–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Official Journal of the European Communities 1.5.2001 L 121/34; www.eudract.emea.eu.int/docs/Dir2001-20_en.pdf; Accessed 12th November 2006.

  11. Lemaire, F., Bion, J., Blanco, J., Damas, P., Druml, C., Falke, K., Kesecioglu, J., Larsson, A., Mancebo, J., Matamis, D., Pesenti, A., Pimentel, J., Ranieri, M., ESICM Task Force on Legislation Affecting Clinical Research in the Critically Ill Patient. (2005). The European Union Directive on Clinical Research: Present status of implementation in EU member states’ legislations with regard to the incompetent patient. Intensive Care Medicine, 31, 476–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liddell, K., Chamberlain, D., Menon, D. K., Bion, J., Kompanje, E. J. O., Lemaire, F., Druml, C., Vrhovac, B., Wiedermann, C. J., & Sterz, F. (2006). The European clinical trial directive revisited: The VISEAR recommendations. Resuscitation, 69, 9–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004; www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20041031.htm; Accessed 12th November 2006.

  14. Spöhr, F., Arntz, H. R., Bluhmki, E., Bode, C., Carli, P., Chamberlain, D., Danays, T., Poth, J., Skamira, C., Wenzel, V., & Böttiger, B. W. (2005). International multicentre trial protocol to assess the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The Thrombolysis in Cardiac Arrest (TROICA) Study. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 35, 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mason, S., Barrow, H., Phillips, A., Eddison, G., Nelson, A., Cullum, N., & Nixon, J. (2006). Brief report on the experience of using proxy consent for incapacitated adults. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 61–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. The CRASH Trial Management Group. (2004). Research in emergency situation: with or without relatives consent. Emergency Medicine Journal, 21, 703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Consultation on amendment to the medicines for human use (clinical trials) regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1031). Medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency MLX326; www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&useSecondary=true&ssDocName=CON1004431&ssTargetNodeId=373; Accessed 14th November 2006.

  18. Nightingale, S. L. (1996). Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research (from the Food and Drug Administration). Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 1632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mental Capacity Act 2005; www.dca.gov.uk/menincap/legis.htm; Accessed 15th November 2006.

  20. Smithline, H. A., & Gerstle, M. L. (1998). Waiver of informed consent: A survey of emergency medicine patients. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16, 90–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Booth, M. G., Lind, A, Read, E., & Kinsella J. (2005). Public perception of emergency research: A questionnaire. European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 22, 933–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. British medical Association; Organ donation in the 21st century: Time for a considered approach; www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Organdonation21st∼current; Accessed 12th November 2006.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Royal Infirmary, Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF, UK

    Malcolm G. Booth

Authors
  1. Malcolm G. Booth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malcolm G. Booth.

Additional information

An earlier version of this article was presented at The 7th International Conference on Bioethics on “The Ethics of Research in Emergency Medicine”, held on June 2, 2006, Warsaw, Poland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Booth, M.G. Informed Consent in Emergency Research: A Contradiction in Terms. Sci Eng Ethics 13, 351–359 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9028-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9028-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation