Consent and Educational Sensitive Exams on Anesthetized Patients: Experiences of Medical Students Across Canada.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates experiences of medical students across Canada related to consent for educational sensitive (i.e., pelvic, rectal) exams under anesthesia (EUAs). METHODS: A bilingual online questionnaire was developed and distributed to medical students across Canada. RESULTS: Of 134 respondents, 63% had performed a pelvic EUA, 35% a rectal EUA, and 11% another sensitive EUA during their training. For those who had performed pelvic EUA, 28% were unsure if consent had taken place, 26% reported no specific consent, 20% reported specific consent, and 25% had mixed experiences of consent. For rectal EUAs, 48% reported no specific consent, 37% were unsure if consent had taken place, 13% reported that there had been specific consent, and 2% reported mixed experiences. Most respondents were uncomfortable (36%) or not sure if they were comfortable (32%) with how the consent process was handled for student pelvic EUAs; 31% were comfortable. In open-ended responses, respondents described a variety of experiences related to variability, discomfort, and authority. CONCLUSION: Non-consensual educational sensitive EUAs continue to take place in medical training across Canada, although practices of consent are highly variable. The majority of respondents reported being uncomfortable or unsure if they are comfortable with how consent for educational sensitive EUAs was practiced during their training, and some respondents struggled to express their discomfort given the power dynamics at play.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Measuring the impact of participatory research in psychiatry: How the search for epistemic justifications obscures ethical considerations.

CONTEXT: Both within politics and practice, the field of psychiatry is undergoing a significant transformation, as increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of involving those with lived experience in research. In response to this participatory turn, a push towards measuring the impact of patient involvement is also growing, seeking to identify how participation can improve research. OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the recent push towards measuring impact in relation to justifications underlying the democratization of research in psychiatry, revealing a disconnect between the two, and harms that could result from a singular focus on measuring impact. DISCUSSION: While those promoting and regulating participatory research tend to focus on the epistemic benefits of such research, many have pointed to both epistemic and ethical justifications underlying participatory research. The ethical reasons for involving service users loom especially large in psychiatry, given its unique history of abuse, the ways diagnoses can be utilized as tools for oppression, and the prevalence of coercion. The current focus on measuring the impact of involvement can be harmful, in that it obscures ethical reasons in favour of epistemic ones, potentially exacerbating issues common to participatory research, such as role confusion and ineffective, tokenistic participatory efforts. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that to take the ethical reasons behind involvement in mental health research seriously will involve looking beyond impact and towards sharing power. We suggest three ways this can be done: measuring more than impact, building service user capacities and sharing power in realms outside of research.

Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?

BACKGROUND: Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts. MAIN TEXT: In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

Health disparities and clinical trial recruitment: Is there a duty to tweet?

While it is well known that the homogeneity of clinical trial participants often threatens the goal of attaining generalizable knowledge, researchers often cite issues with recruitment, including a lack of interest from participants, shortages of resources, or difficulty accessing particular populations, to explain the lack of diversity within sampling. It is proposed that social media might provide an opportunity to overcome these obstacles through affordable, targeted recruitment advertisements or messages. Recruiters are warned, however, to be cautious using these means, since risks related to privacy and transparency can take on a new hue.

Trust, trustworthiness and sharing patient data for research.

When it comes to using patient data from the National Health Service (NHS) for research, we are often told that it is a matter of trust: we need to trust, we need to build trust, we need to restore trust. Various policy papers and reports articulate and develop these ideas and make very important contributions to public dialogue on the trustworthiness of our research institutions. But these documents and policies are apparently constructed with little sustained reflection on the nature of trust and trustworthiness, and therefore are missing important features that matter for how we manage concerns related to trust. We suggest that what we mean by 'trust' and 'trustworthiness' matters and should affect the policies and guidance that govern data sharing in the NHS. We offer a number of initial, general reflections on the way in which some of these features might affect our approach to principles, policies and strategies that are related to sharing patient data for research. This paper is the outcome of a 'public ethics' coproduction activity which involved members of the public and two academic ethicists. Our task was to consider collectively the accounts of trust developed by philosophers as they applied in the context of the NHS and to coproduce an argumentative position relevant to this context.

Public involvement in the governance of population-level biomedical research: unresolved questions and future directions.

Population-level biomedical research offers new opportunities to improve population health, but also raises new challenges to traditional systems of research governance and ethical oversight. Partly in response to these challenges, various models of public involvement in research are being introduced. Yet, the ways in which public involvement should meet governance challenges are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study with 36 experts and stakeholders using the World Café method to identify key governance challenges and explore how public involvement can meet these challenges. This brief report discusses four cross-cutting themes from the study: the need to move beyond individual consent; issues in benefit and data sharing; the challenge of delineating and understanding publics; and the goal of clarifying justifications for public involvement. The report aims to provide a starting point for making sense of the relationship between public involvement and the governance of population-level biomedical research, showing connections, potential solutions and issues arising at their intersection. We suggest that, in population-level biomedical research, there is a pressing need for a shift away from conventional governance frameworks focused on the individual and towards a focus on collectives, as well as to foreground ethical issues around social justice and develop ways to address cultural diversity, value pluralism and competing stakeholder interests. There are many unresolved questions around how this shift could be realised, but these unresolved questions should form the basis for developing justificatory accounts and frameworks for suitable collective models of public involvement in population-level biomedical research governance.

Managing conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: A proposal for multicentre formulary development.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: While many countries have central agencies responsible for formulary development, within the United States, each hospital, health care system, or insurance provider has their own pharmacy and therapeutic committee, leading to both inefficiencies and inequalities across formularies. The number and variety of processes within pharmacy and therapeutic committees also increases the likelihood that conflicts of interest will influence the development of formularies. We sought to determine how such influences could be reduced by reviewing international evidence related to the presence and harms of conflicts of interest in formulary development. METHODS: Several approaches have been taken to reduce the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes, including include disclosure, recusal, exclusion, universal consideration and dual committees. The feasibility of each of these approaches is considered in the context of the United States. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A proposal is drawn from the discussion of various approaches to conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: multicenter formulary development. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Multicentre formulary development, where resources are pooled across institutions, may lead to a reduction in the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes in the United States, increasing the chances of including the most safe, efficacious and cost-effective drugs on formularies.

Experiences of Parachute NYC: An Integration of Open Dialogue and Intentional Peer Support.

Guided by the principles of Open Dialogue and Intentional Peer Support (IPS), Parachute NYC was designed to provide a "soft landing" for people experiencing psychiatric crisis. From 2012 to 2018, Parachute's teams of clinicians and peer specialists provided home-based mental health care to enrollees and their networks (family, friends), seeking to engage and improve their natural support networks. This qualitative study examined the experiences of enrollees and network members who participated in Parachute. Participants reported that they valued the accessibility and flexibility of Parachute as well as their relationships with, and the lack of hierarchy within, the Parachute team. Responses to the structure of network meetings and Parachute's approach to medication were mixed, with a few participants struggling with what they felt was a lack of urgency and others experiencing the approach as holistic. Many enrollees and network members reported that Parachute improved their self-understanding and relationships with each other.

Personal responsibility within health policy: unethical and ineffective.

This paper argues against incorporating assessments of individual responsibility into healthcare policies by expanding an existing argument and offering a rebuttal to an argument in favour of such policies. First, it is argued that what primarily underlies discussions surrounding personal responsibility and healthcare is not causal responsibility, moral responsibility or culpability, as one might expect, but biases towards particular highly stigmatised behaviours. A challenge is posed for proponents of taking personal responsibility into account within health policy to either expand the debate to also include socially accepted behaviours or to provide an alternative explanation of the narrowly focused discussion. Second, a critical response is offered to arguments that claim that policies based on personal responsibility would lead to several positive outcomes including healthy behaviour change, better health outcomes and decreases in healthcare spending. It is argued that using individual responsibility as a basis for resource allocation in healthcare is unlikely to motivate positive behaviour changes, and is likely to increase inequality which may lead to worse health outcomes overall. Finally, the case of West Virginia's Medicaid reform is examined, which raises a worry that policies focused on personal responsibility have the potential to lead to increases in medical spending overall.

Placebo effects and racial and ethnic health disparities: an unjust and underexplored connection.

While a significant body of bioethical literature considers how the placebo effect might introduce a conflict between autonomy and beneficence, the link between justice and the placebo effect has been neglected. Here, we bring together disparate evidence from the field of placebo studies and research on health inequalities related to race and ethnicity, and argue that, collectively, this evidence may provide the basis for an unacknowledged route by which health disparities are exacerbated. This route is constituted by an uneven distribution of placebo effects, resulting from differences in expressions of physician warmth and empathy, as well as support and patient engagement, across racial and ethnic lines. In a discussion of the ethical implications of this connection, we argue that this contribution to health disparities is a source of injustice, consider ways in which these disparities might be ameliorated and suggest that this conclusion is likely to extend to other realms of inequality as well.

National Standards for Public Involvement in Research: missing the forest for the trees.

Biomedical research funding bodies across Europe and North America increasingly encourage-and, in some cases, require-investigators to involve members of the public in funded research. Yet there remains a striking lack of clarity about what 'good' or 'successful' public involvement looks like. In an effort to provide guidance to investigators and research organisations, representatives of several key research funding bodies in the UK recently came together to develop the National Standards for Public Involvement in Research. The Standards have critical implications for the future of biomedical research in the UK and in other countries as researchers and funders abroad look to the Standards as a model for their own policy development. We assess the Standards and find that despite offering useful suggestions for dealing with practical challenges associated with public involvement, the Standards fail to address fundamental questions about when, why and with whom public involvement should be undertaken in the first place. We show that presented without this justificatory context, many of the recommendations in the Standards are, at best, fragments that require substantial elaboration by those looking to apply the Standards in their own work and, at worst, subject to potentially harmful misapplication by well-meaning investigators. As funding bodies increasingly push for public involvement in research, the key lesson of our analysis is that future recommendations about how public involvement should be conducted cannot be coherently formulated without a clear sense of the underlying goals and rationales for public involvement.

Educational pelvic exams on anesthetized women: Why consent matters.

It is argued here that the practice of medical students performing pelvic exams on women who are under anesthetic and have not consented is immoral and indefensible. This argument begins by laying out the ethical justification for the practice of informed consent, which can be found in autonomy and basic rights. Foregoing the process of consent within medicine can result in violations of both autonomy and basic rights, as well as trust, forming the basis of the wrong of unauthorized pelvic examinations. Several objections to this argument are considered, all of which stem from the idea that this practice constitutes an exception to the general requirement of informed consent. These objections suggest that nonconsensual pelvic examinations on women under anesthetic are ethically acceptable on utilitarian grounds, in that they offer benefits either to the patient or to society, or on the grounds of triviality, in that consent is already presumed, or the practice is insignificant. Each of these objections is rejected and the practice is deemed indefensible.

Rethinking the Belmont Report?

This article reflects on the relevance and applicability of the Belmont Report nearly four decades after its original publication. In an exploration of criticisms that have been raised in response to the report and of significant changes that have occurred within the context of biomedical research, five primary themes arise. These themes include the increasingly vague boundary between research and practice, unique harms to communities that are not addressed by the principle of respect for persons, and how growing complexity and commodification in research have shed light on the importance of transparency. The repercussions of Belmont's emphasis on the protection of vulnerable populations is also explored, as is the relationship between the report's ethical principles and their applications. It is concluded that while the Belmont Report was an impressive response to the ethical issues of its day, the field of research ethics involving human subjects may have outgrown it.