Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

No abstract

No abstract

Background:To date, no treatment for neuromyelitis optica (NMO) has been granted regulatory approval, and no controlled clinical studies have been reported.Objective:To design a placebo-controlled study in NMO that appropriately balances patient safety and clinical–scientific integrity.Methods:We assessed the “standard of care” for NMO to establish the ethical framework for a placebo-controlled trial. We implemented measures that balance the need for scientific robustness while mitigating the risks associated with a placebo-controlled study. The medical or scientific community, patient organizations, and regulatory authorities were engaged early in discussions on this placebo-controlled study, and their input contributed to the final study design.Results:The N-MOmentum study (NCT02200770) is a clinical trial that randomizes NMO patients to receive MEDI-551, a monoclonal antibody that depletes CD19+ B-cells, or placebo. The study design has received regulatory, ethical, clinical, and patient approval in over 100 clinical sites in more than 20 countries worldwide.Conclusion:The approach we took in the design of the N-MOmentum trial might serve as a roadmap for other rare severe diseases when there is no proven therapy and no established clinical development path.

BackgroundThis paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds.MethodsThe consensus process used a modified Delphi approach.ResultsConsensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise).ConclusionsThrough articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

In recent years, there have been prominent calls for a new social contract that accords a more central role to citizens in health research. Typically, this has been understood as citizens and patients having a greater voice and role within the standard research enterprise. Beyond this, however, it is important that the renegotiated contract specifically addresses the oversight of a new, path-breaking approach to health research: participant-led research. In light of the momentum behind participant-led research and its potential to advance health knowledge by challenging and complementing traditional research, it is vital for all stakeholders to work together in securing the conditions that will enable it to flourish.

Background Research into dementia and other conditions connected with cognitive impairments is essential but conducting research with populations who lack capacity to provide consent involves a number of ethical, legal and practical challenges. In England and Wales, family members can act as a consultee or legal representative on behalf of someone who lacks capacity. However, there is a paucity of research about how family members make decisions concerning research participation. Objective To explore family members’ experiences of proxy decision-making for research. Understanding how proxy decisions are made could lead to interventions to support greater inclusion of individuals in research who have impaired decision-making capacity. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 17 family members who had experience as a proxy for making decisions about participation in research, including those who had agreed to participation and those who declined. Thematic analysis was used to examine experiences and generate findings for research practice and to develop future supportive interventions. Results Proxy decision-making is highly contextualised. Proxies balance a number of factors when deciding about research participation, including the person’s values and preferences, within the specific context of the study, and the practicalities of being involved. Proxies use these factors to construct a decision that is authentic to the person they care for. Conclusions Proxy decision-making for research is a complex process with inter-woven layers of decision-making. Decisions can be problematic for some proxies who may benefit from decision support to make an informed decision about research participation on behalf of a family member.

As the COVID-19 pandemic impacts on health service delivery, health providers are modifying care pathways and staffing models in ways that require health professionals to be reallocated to work in critical care settings. Many of the roles that staff are being allocated to in the intensive care unit and emergency department pose additional risks to themselves, and new policies for staff reallocation are causing distress and uncertainty to the professionals concerned. In this paper, we analyse a range of ethical issues associated with changes to staff allocation processes in the face of COVID-19. In line with a dominant view in the medical ethics literature, we claim, first, that no individual health professional has a specific, positive obligation to treat a patient when doing so places that professional at risk of harm, and so there is a clear ethical tension in any reallocation process in this context. Next, we argue that the changing asymmetries of health needs in hospitals means that careful consideration needs to be given to a stepwise process for deallocating staff from their usual duties. We conclude by considering how a justifiable process of reallocating professionals to highrisk clinical roles should be configured once those who are 'fit for reallocation' have been identified. We claim that this process needs to attend to three questions that we consider in detail: (1) how the choice to make reallocation decisions is made, (2) what justifiable models for reallocation might look like and (3) what is owed to those who are reallocated.on June 9, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.