No abstract

No abstract

Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.

No abstract

Inclusion of children in medical decision making, to the extent of their ability and interest in doing so, should be the default position, ensuring that children are routinely given a voice. However, optimizing the involvement of children in their health care decisions remains challenging for clinicians. Missing from the literature is a stepwise approach to assessing when and how a child should be included in medical decision making. We propose a systematic approach for doing so, and we apply this approach in a discussion of two challenging clinical cases. The approach is informed by a literature review, and is anchored by case studies of teenagers' refusal of clinical care, regulatory requirements for research assent, and the accepted approach to involving cognitively impaired adults in medical decisions.

Background The current global pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in the blood supply network. Given the recent shortages, there must be a civilian plan for massively bleeding patients when there are no blood products on the shelf. Recognizing that the time to death in bleeding patients is less than 2 h, timely resupply from unaffected locations is not possible. One solution is to transfuse emergency untested whole blood (EUWB), similar to the extensive military experience fine‐tuned over the last 19 years. While this concept is anathema in current civilian transfusion practice, it seems prudent to have a vetted plan in place. Methods and Materials During the early stages of the 2020 global pandemic, a multidisciplinary and international group of clinicians with broad experience in transfusion medicine communicated routinely. The result is a planning document that provides both background information and a high‐level guide on how to emergently deliver EUWB for patients who would otherwise die of hemorrhage. Results and Conclusions Similar plans have been utilized in remote locations, both on the battlefield and in civilian practice. The proposed recommendations are designed to provide high‐level guidance for experienced blood bankers, transfusion experts, clinicians, and health authorities. Like with all emergency preparedness, it is always better to have a well‐thought‐out and trained plan in place, rather than trying to develop a hasty plan in the midst of a disaster. We need to prevent the potential for empty shelves and bleeding patients dying for lack of blood.

Barriers to informed consent are ubiquitous in the conduct of emergency care research across a wide range of conditions and clinical contexts. They are largely unavoidable; can be related to time constraints, physical symptoms, emotional stress, and cognitive impairment; and affect patients and surrogates. US regulations permit an exception from informed consent for certain clinical trials in emergency settings, but these regulations have generally been used to facilitate trials in which patients are unconscious and no surrogate is available. Most emergency care research, however, involves conscious patients, and surrogates are often available. Unfortunately, there is neither clear regulatory guidance nor established ethical standards in regard to consent in these settings. In this report-the result of a workshop convened by the National Institutes of Health Office of Emergency Care Research and Department of Bioethics to address ethical challenges in emergency care research-we clarify potential gaps in ethical understanding and federal regulations about research in emergency care in which limited involvement of patients or surrogates in enrollment decisions is possible. We propose a spectrum of approaches directed toward realistic ethical goals and a research and policy agenda for addressing these issues to facilitate clinical research necessary to improve emergency care.

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can help answer questions of comparative effectiveness for interventions routinely used in medical practice. PCTs may examine outcomes of one or more marketed medical products, and they are heterogeneous in design and risk. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of individuals enrolled in clinical investigations, as well as assuring the integrity upon which approval of medical products are made. The FDA has broad jurisdiction over drugs and medical devices (whether or not they are approved for marketing), and as such, clinical investigations of these products are subject to applicable FDA regulations. While many PCTs will meet the criteria for an exemption from the requirements for an investigational new drug application (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE), in general all clinical investigations of medical products that fall under FDA jurisdiction must adhere to regulations for informed consent and review by an institutional review board (IRB). We are concerned that current FDA requirements for obtaining individual informed consent may deter or delay the conduct of PCTs intended to develop reliable evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness of approved medical products that are regulated by the FDA. Under current regulations, there are no described mechanisms to alter or waive informed consent to make it less burdensome or more practicable for low-risk PCTs. We recommend that the FDA establish a risk-based approach to obtaining informed consent in PCTs that would facilitate the conduct of PCTs without compromising the protection of enrolled individuals or the integrity of the resulting data.