Challenging misconceptions about clinical ethics support during COVID-19 and beyond: a legal update and future considerations.

The pace of change and, indeed, the sheer number of clinical ethics committees (not to be confused with research ethics committees) has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Committees were formed to support healthcare professionals and to operationalise, interpret and compensate for gaps in national and professional guidance. But as the role of clinical ethics support becomes more prominent and visible, it becomes ever more important to address gaps in the support structure and misconceptions as to role and remit. The recent case of Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v MX, FX and X ([2020] EWHC 1958 (Fam), [21]-[23] and [58]) has highlighted the importance of patient/family representation at clinical ethics committee meetings. The court viewed these meetings as making decisions about such treatment. We argue that this misunderstands the role of ethics support, with treatment decisions remaining with the clinical team and those providing their consent. The considered review by clinical ethics committees of the moral issues surrounding complex treatment decisions is not a matter of determining a single ethical course of action. In this article, we consider current legal understandings of clinical ethics committees, explore current concepts of ethics support and suggest how they may evolve, considering the various mechanisms of the inclusion of patients and their representatives in ethics meetings which is not standard in the UK.

Implementation of Japan's First Clinical Research Regulatory Law: Background, Overview, and Challenges.

In April 2018, Japan's first law regulating clinical research went into effect. The law aimed to strengthen regulations on research integrity and conflicts of interest, which had been limited under existing administrative guidelines; the law also provided stipulations for legal penalties. The scope of the new regulations, however, is limited entirely to studies that evaluate unapproved drugs or the off-label use of approved drugs, and those that receive funding from companies. On the other hand, the law's application brings numerous complications, including the establishment of new review committees, troublesome procedures for transitioning studies that are currently underway, and ambiguities about the scope of what constitutes best efforts. Thus, the change has led to substantial strain and confusion in the field. This paper offers an overview of the law and its background, and discusses its future prospects from the practical standpoint of managing ethics committees and providing research ethics support in the field.

Who Makes Decisions for Incapacitated Patients Who Have No Surrogate or Advance Directive?

Unrepresented patients are those who have no surrogate or advance directive to guide medical decision making for them when they become incapacitated. While there is no perfect solution to the problem of making medical decisions for such vulnerable patients, 3 different approaches are noted in the literature: a physician approach, an ethics committee approach, and a guardianship approach. Recent policies and laws have required an approach that is "tiered" with respect to both who is involved and the gravity of the medical treatment questions at issue. In a general sense, some variant of a tiered approach is likely the best possible solution for jurisdictions and health institutions-both those already with and those without a tiered approach-to the challenging puzzle of treating unrepresented patients.

It is never lawful or ethical to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness.

In English law there is a strong (though rebuttable) presumption that life should be maintained. This article contends that this presumption means that it is always unlawful to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients in permanent vegetative state (PVS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), and that the reasons for this being the correct legal analysis mean also that such withdrawal will always be ethically unacceptable. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, the medical uncertainties inherent in the definition and diagnosis of PVS/MCS are such that, as a matter of medical fact, it can never be established, with the degree of certainty necessary to rebut the presumption, that it is not in the patient's best interest to remain alive. And second (and more controversially and repercussively), that even if permanent unconsciousness can be unequivocally demonstrated, the presumption is not rebutted. This is because there is plainly more to human existence than consciousness (or consciousness the markers of which can ever be demonstrated by medical investigations). It can never be said that the identity of the patient whose best interests are at stake evaporates (so eliminating the legal or ethical subject) when that person ceases to be conscious. Nor can it be said that the best interests of an unconscious person do not mandate continued biological existence. We simply cannot know. That uncertainty is legally conclusive, and (subject to resource allocation questions and views about the relevance of family wishes and the previously expressed wishes of the patient) should be ethically conclusive.

Impact of regulatory assessment on clinical studies in Brazil / Impacto da avaliação regulatória em estudos clínicos no Brasil

SUMMARY Introduction: Despite the recent expansion of clinical studies allocated to Brazil, the delay of local regulatory deadlines directly impacts their completion. Objective: This article examines the allocation process of clinical studies to Brazil in comparison with other countries, as well as the financial impact of studies not completed due to interruption caused by the delay in the regulatory process. Method: The allocation processes of studies were compared in nine countries with similar stages of economic development and countries in Latin America using the websites http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-rankings-table and http://worldpopulationreview.com and clinicaltrials.gov, comprising 185 countries. The 46 studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry underwent an analysis of the regulatory review process. Results: 46 studies sponsored by the industry and submitted in the country between June 2007 and June 2013 were analyzed; 18 (39%) were discontinued due to the delay in obtaining the necessary approvals. For the approved studies, patient recruitment began an average of 11 months after the other countries. It is estimated that 530 Brazilians patients did not have the opportunity to participate in these studies. Financial losses were to the order of 14.6 million dollars for the country, including patient, medication and supplies costs, and expenses. Conclusion: Brazil has enormous potential for the realization of clinical studies. Researchers, associations of disabled people and patients with chronic diseases, sponsors and the authorities must work together to develop an approval process that is efficient, predictable and, most of all, transparent. The current regulatory environment must and can be improved and optimized in order to result in tangible benefits for patients, society and the country’s scientific development.

RESUMO Introdução: apesar da recente expansão de estudos clínicos alocados para o Brasil, a demora dos prazos regulatórios locais impacta diretamente em sua realização. Objetivo: este artigo analisa o processo de alocação de estudos clínicos para o Brasil em comparação a outros países, bem como o impacto financeiro dos estudos não realizados em decorrência da interrupção pela demora no processo regulatório. Método: foram comparados os processos de alocação de estudos em nove países com estágios semelhantes de desenvolvimento econômico e países da América Latina através dos siteshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table, http://worldpopulationreview.com e clinicaltrials.gov, que engloba 185 países. Os 46 estudos patrocinados pela indústria farmacêutica tiveram o processo de avaliação regulatória analisado. Resultados: foram analisados 46 estudos patrocinados pela indústria submetidos no país entre junho de 2007 e junho de 2013; 18 (39%) foram descontinuados pelo atraso na obtenção das aprovações necessárias. Para os estudos aprovados, o recrutamento de pacientes começou, em média, aos 11 meses após os demais países. Estima-se que 530 pacientes brasileiros não tiveram a oportunidade de participar desses estudos. As perdas financeiras foram da ordem de 14,6 milhões de dólares para o país, incluindo custos com paciente, medicação, suprimentos e despesas administrativas. Conclusão: o Brasil tem um enorme potencial para a realização de estudos clínicos. Investigadores, associações de deficientes e pacientes portadores de doenças crônicas, patrocinadores e autoridades devem trabalhar juntos para desenvolver um processo de aprovação eficiente, previsível e antes de tudo transparente. O atual ambiente regulatório deve e pode ser melhorado e aperfeiçoado, caso contrário não resultará em benefícios tangíveis para o paciente, para a sociedade e a evolução médico-científica do país.

Impact of regulatory assessment on clinical studies in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the recent expansion of clinical studies allocated to Brazil, the delay of local regulatory deadlines directly impacts their completion. OBJECTIVE: This article examines the allocation process of clinical studies to Brazil in comparison with other countries, as well as the financial impact of studies not completed due to interruption caused by the delay in the regulatory process. METHOD: The allocation processes of studies were compared in nine countries with similar stages of economic development and countries in Latin America using the websites http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-rankings-table and http://worldpopulationreview.com and clinicaltrials.gov, comprising 185 countries. The 46 studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry underwent an analysis of the regulatory review process. RESULTS: 46 studies sponsored by the industry and submitted in the country between June 2007 and June 2013 were analyzed; 18 (39%) were discontinued due to the delay in obtaining the necessary approvals. For the approved studies, patient recruitment began an average of 11 months after the other countries. It is estimated that 530 Brazilians patients did not have the opportunity to participate in these studies. Financial losses were to the order of 14.6 million dollars for the country, including patient, medication and supplies costs, and expenses. CONCLUSION: Brazil has enormous potential for the realization of clinical studies. Researchers, associations of disabled people and patients with chronic diseases, sponsors and the authorities must work together to develop an approval process that is efficient, predictable and, most of all, transparent. The current regulatory environment must and can be improved and optimized in order to result in tangible benefits for patients, society and the country's scientific development.

What is the role of ethics committees after Regulation (EU) 536/2014?

EU Regulation 536/2014 stipulates that when assessing applications for authorisation to conduct clinical trials, Member States should formulate a 'single decision'. This raises the problem of identifying: (1) the facility designated to express this 'single decision' and (2) the role of ethics committees in the decision-making process. The article addresses the consequences of the requirement that for each Member State the assessment of an application for approval to conduct a trial must take the form of a 'single decision' by the Member State concerned. Three possible approaches to the procedures for expressing that 'single decision' and to the role of ethics committees in the decision-making process are described, one of which is indicated as the preferred option.

The European "clinical trial" regulation; relationship with the Jardé Act: a Giens workshop.

In May 2014, the European Union Parliament and Council published a new regulation on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which is designed to replace Directive 2001/20/EC. It will not come into effect until 2016. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine its relationship with national legislation, i.e. the Jardé Act, whose implementation has been delayed pending publication of the European regulation. The Giens workshop identified and examined the various issues that this relationship is bound to raise. In particular, it looked at trial methodology assessment procedures, the working relationship between the French National Agency of Drug Safety and Health Products (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, ANSM) and ethics committees during the authorization application evaluation phase, review of post-authorization/registration studies on medicinal products and medical devices, and data transparency.

[Implementation of clinical ethics consultation in German hospitals]. / Wird Klinische Ethikberatung in Krankenhäusern in Deutschland implementiert?

BACKGROUND: There have been different initiatives for the implementation of clinical ethics consultation during the past years. The present study surveys current data. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was used. Of the 1,858 contacted hospitals throughout Germany 550 answered to that questionnaire (return rate 29,6 %). The survey took place between September 2013 and January 2014. RESULTS: The clinical ethics committee is the mostly implemented structure of clinical ethics consultation. Recommendations to implement those structures (ZEKO 2006, AEM 2010) show less influence than the legally binding standard (HKHG 2011). Structures of clinical ethics consultation are respected as instrument to solving ethical conflicts in clinical routines. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing ethics consultation should be promoted. Preferably appropriate legal rules for the implementation of clinical ethics consultation should be developed further as well as their structural framing.

Some comments on the new regulations governing ethics committees in Italy.

Italy has recently introduced regulations that profoundly change the arrangement of ethics committees. Specifically, their numbers have been reduced from more than 200 to a few dozen.The decree defining the criteria for their composition and functioning includes regulations intended to improve efficiency and efficacy. The present article provides a brief overview of the new provisions and identifies some critical aspects.

European Medicines Agency, CAT Secretariat & US Food and Drug Administration.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) are responsible for reviewing applications for marketing authorization for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products (ATMP), which include (stem) cell-based medicines, for the ATMP classification and certification procedure, and to provide scientific advice to developers of ATMPs. The CAT, an expert committee dedicated to ATMPs, was established by the Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on Advanced Therapies. The CAT came into operation in January 2009. ATMPs are defined in this Regulation as gene therapy and cell therapy medicinal products, and tissue-engineered products. The US FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is responsible for ensuring the safety, purity, potency and effectiveness of many biologically derived products, including blood intended for transfusion, blood components and derivatives, vaccines and allergenic extracts, and cell, tissue and gene therapy products for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of human diseases, conditions or injury. Human cells or tissue intended for implantation, transplantation, infusion or transfer into a human recipient are regulated as human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps).

Legal briefing: Healthcare ethics committees.

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as "death panels." But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified their roles concerning both end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories: 1. Existence and availability. 2. Membership and composition. 3. Operating procedures. 4. Advisory roles. 5. Decision-making and gate-keeping roles. 6. Confidentiality. 7. Immunity. 8. Litigation and court cases.

End-of-life decision making in the intensive care unit.

Increasingly in the United States and other countries, medical decisions, including those at the end of life, are made using a shared decision-making model. Under this model, physicians and other clinicians help patients clarify their values and reach consensus about treatment courses consistent with them. Because most critically ill patients are decisionally impaired, family members and other surrogates must make end-of-life decisions for them, ideally in accord with a substituted judgment standard. Physicians generally make decisions for patients who lack families or other surrogates and have no advance directives, based on a best interests standard and occasionally in consultation with other physicians or with review by a hospital ethics committee. End-of-life decisions for patients with surrogates usually are made at family conferences, the functioning of which can be improved by several methods that have been demonstrated to improve communications. Facilitative ethics consultations can be helpful in resolving conflicts when physicians and families disagree in end-of-life decisions. Ethics committees actually are allowed to make such decisions in one state when disagreements cannot be resolved otherwise.

[Contribution to the qualification of hospital ethics bodies in the cancer centers]. / Contribution à la qualification des démarches éthiques hospitalières dans les centres de lutte contre le cancer.

The present op-ed article reports on a thesis study which examines the emergence of ethics committees in health care institutions. These committees have developed rapidly over the past few years in order to address ethical issues related to the management and care of patients. However, the question is raised of whether the ethics committees established in hospitals are an appropriate and effective response to the demands of the law (bill L. 6111-1), which states that institutions should implement ethical policies but does not provide any guidance on what should be done in practice.

Clinical ethics committees, due process and the right to a fair hearing.

The development of clinical ethics committees in the United Kingdom raises a number of important questions about the extent to which they are compatible with the normative values of due process. If committees are to be active in delivering ethics services, it is argued that attention to due process is important. Based on research outcomes, it seems that the chairs of the United Kingdom clinical ethics committees who responded are reasonably satisfied about the ability of their committees to make ethical decisions and slightly less confident about their ability to make legal decisions. If these committees are to make potentially far-reaching decisions (whether or not involving live consultations), it is argued here that they must pay attention to the rules associated with the legal concept of due process. Equally, evaluation of the clinical ethics committee's counterpart in the United States suggests that they may become increasingly authoritative, especially as their role becomes entrenched. This makes attention to due process even more important. However, it is also proposed that, when committees become concerned about due process, their ability to "do ethics" is constrained.