Termo de consentimento livre e esclarecido e sua relação com os procedimentos de preenchimento labial / Free and informed consent terms and its relationship with lip filling procedures

Introdução: Na medida em que envelhecemos os lábios estreitam-se, ocasionando perda de volume e contorno e como forma de minimizar este efeito fisiológico o preenchimento labial de escolha utilizado é o ácido hialurônico. É possível perceber efeitos adversos advindos do emprego deste material, e pelo fato da informação ao paciente ser assegurada pelo Código de Defesa do Consumidor e pelo fato da necessidade dos Cirurgiões-Dentistas terem de esclarecer seus pacientes, o Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido tornase necessário. Objetivo: identificar, por meio de aplicação de questionário, a percepção de profissionais que trabalham com Harmonização Orofacial em relação a necessidade do emprego do Termo de Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido (TCLE). O questionário apresentou 6 perguntas objetivas, que foram disponibilizadas na plataforma Google Forms®. Material e Método: os dados obtidos foram tabulados em uma planilha eletrônica do programa Microsoft Excel e após analisados descritivamente através de tabelas de frequência, porcentagens e gráficos estatísticos. Resultados: dentre os entrevistados foi constatado que a maioria, 87,5% dos especialistas em Harmonização Orofacial realizam o procedimento de preenchimento labial em sua rotina clínica, e 12,5% não. Conclusão: no presente estudo identificamos que os especialistas realizam o emprego do TCLE, em sua maioria, porém, alguns destes ainda negligenciam o seu uso(AU)

Introduction: As we age, the lips become thinner and to minimize this effect, the lip filler used is hyaluronic acid. It is possible to notice adverse effects arising from the use of this material, and it is extremely important that Dental Surgeons have to clarify their patients, the Free and Informed Consent Form becomes necessary. Objective: to identify, through the application of a questionnaire, the perception of professionals who work with Orofacial Harmonization in relation to the need to use the Free and Informed Consent Form (TCLE). The questionnaire presented 6 objective questions, which were made available on the Google Forms® platform. Materials and Methods: the data obtained were tabulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then analyzed descriptively using frequency tables, percentages and graphs. Results: among those interviewed, it was found that the majority, 87.5% of specialists in Orofacial Harmonization perform the lip filling procedure in their clinical routine, and 12.5% do not. With the high percentage of 59.4%, it was possible to verify that the majority of professionals perform 1 to 3 procedures per month; 31.3% perform 4 to 9 procedures per month; and 9.4% of 10 or more monthly procedures. Conclusion: in the present study it was possible to identify that the majority of specialists in Orofacial Harmonization use the informed consent form, however, some of them still neglect its use(AU)

Key requirements for obtaining valid informed consent to treatment.

Richard Griffith, Senior Lecturer in Health Law at Swansea University, discusses the importance of consent in nursing and outlines the key elements for ensuring the patient has given valid consent before providing treatment.

Legal and ethical challenges in assisted reproductive technology practice in Ghana.

Objective: Infertility remains a global challenge, with assisted reproductive technology (ART) progressively gaining relevance in developing countries, including Ghana. However, associated ethico-legal challenges have not received the needed policy attention. This study explored the legal and ethical challenges of ART practice in Ghana. Design: The study employed an exploratory phenomenological approach to examine ART in Ghana, focusing on ethics and law governing this practice. Participants: Respondents were ART practitioners, managers, facility owners, representatives of surrogacy/gamete donor agencies, and regulatory body representatives. Methods: A semi-structured interview guide was used to collect data.The in-depth interviews were audiotaped, and responses transcribed for analysis through coding, followed by generation of themes and sub-themes, supported with direct quotes. Results: It emerged that there are no ethical and legal frameworks for ART practice in Ghana, and this adversely affects ART practice. Ethical challenges identified border on informed consent, clients' privacy and clinical data protection, gamete donation issues, multiple gestations, single parenting, and social and religious issues. The legal challenges identified include the non-existence of a legal regime for regulating ART practice and the absence of a professional body with clear-cut guidelines on ART practice. In the absence of legal and ethical frameworks in Ghana, practitioners intimated they do comply with internationally accepted principles and general ethics in medical practice. Conclusion: There are no regulations on ART in Ghana. Legal and ethical guidelines are essential to the provision of safe and successful ART practices to protect providers and users. Governmental efforts to regulate Ghana need to be prioritized. Funding: This study had no external funding support. It was funded privately from researchers' contributions.

Moving Genomics into the Clinic: Platforms for Implementing Clinical Genomic Data-Sharing in Ways That Address Ethical, Legal and Social Implications.

This section explores the challenges involved in translating genomic research into genomic medicine. A number of priorities have been identified in the Australian National Health Genomics Framework for addressing these challenges. Responsible collection, storage, use and management of genomic data is one of these priorities, and is the primary theme of this section. The recent release of Genomical, an Australian data-sharing platform, is used as a case study to illustrate the type of assistance that can be provided to the health care sector in addressing this priority. The section first describes the National Framework and other drivers involved in the move towards genomic medicine. The section then examines key ethical, legal and social factors at play in genomics, with particular focus on privacy and consent. Finally, the section examines how Genomical is being used to help ensure that the move towards genomic medicine is ethically, legally and socially sound and that it optimises advances in both genomic and information technology.

Informed Consent and the Duty to Warn: More than the Mere Provision of Information.

Before providing any form of medical treatment, medical practitioners are generally required to discharge their duty to warn. It is argued in this article that the duty to warn, at least as it relates to frail and elderly patients, requires the principles of shared decision-making to be adopted. Doing so will ensure a comprehensive biopsychosocial understanding of the patient and assist in identifying material risks that may not be readily apparent. Such risks include risks that threaten the patient's values, preferences, treatment aims and long-term outcomes. Once such risks are identified, in discharging the duty to warn, they should be contextualised in a manner that makes clear how that risk will manifest in that particular patient. These risks should then also be synthesised within the context of their other medical issues and longer-term interests. Finally, it is suggested that the traditional consent process may need restructuring.

Important legal principles of consent and mental capacity.

Consent is an essential part of healthcare practice, allowing patients to make autonomous decisions. However, this changes when a patient has mental incapacity or is unable to make decisions for themselves for a duration of time. This month's Policy column looks at some of the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and how this can be applied in community nursing practice.

Caesarean section on request - a controversial request or the patient's right?

Caesarean section on request, a request that we have been encountering more and more recently. This can be interpreted as a primary caesarean section performed as a request of the mother without any relevant obstetrical or other medical indications in order to avoid vaginal delivery. The most common reason for mothers' requests for caesarean section is the fear of childbirth and the associated pain. Currently, medicine recognises the patient's right to actively participate in the choice of treatment procedures, including methods of delivery. We have accepted patients' claim for various aesthetic surgical interventions, in case they provide informed consent. The same principle should be maintained for caesarean sections on request.

Coerced consent in clinical research: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the low-risk nature of participation in most clinical anesthesia trials, subject recruitment on the same day as surgery is often restricted due to the concerns of researchers and local research ethics boards that same-day consent may not afford adequate time and opportunity for patients to weigh and make decisions, as well as perceptions of patient vulnerability immediately prior to surgery that could impact the voluntary nature and the rigor of the informed consent process. However, specialties such as anesthesiology, critical care, interventional radiology, and emergency medicine have a varied pattern of practice and patient acquaintance that does not typically afford the luxury of time or, in many cases, advance consent for participation in research. Indeed, the initial encounter between anesthesiologists and patients undergoing elective procedures routinely occurs on the day of surgery. Concerns of coercion related to same-day consent for clinical anesthesia research trials have not been borne out in the literature, and represent a significant obstacle to clinical researchers, as well as to the patients who are denied opportunities for potential benefit through participation in research studies. METHODS: We describe the protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial examining the voluntariness of patient consent, solicited either in advance of surgery or on the same day, to participate in an anesthesia research study at Women's College Hospital. One hundred fourteen patients scheduled to undergo ambulatory anterior cruciate ligament repair facilitated by general anesthesia with an adductor canal block will be randomized for recruitment either (a) in the pre-operative assessment clinic before the day of surgery or (b) on the day of surgery, to be approached for consent to participate in a fabricated research study of adjunct medications in adductor canal blocks. Regardless of allocation, patients in both groups will receive the same routine standard of care and will complete a post-operative questionnaire to signal perceptions of undue influence in the process of providing informed consent for the fabricated trial. DISCUSSION: This study will inform trial design and practice guidelines surrounding the amount of time patients ought to be afforded in order to make durable decisions to participate (or not) in clinical research studies. This is expected to impact trial recruitment in a variety of clinical settings where researchers have only brief opportunities to interface with patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (OSF), registration #46twc, on 2023-Mar-17.

Nudging against consent is effective but lowers welfare.

Behavioural nudges are often criticised because they "work best in the dark". However, recent experimental evidence suggests that the effectiveness of nudges is not reduced when they are delivered transparently. Most people also endorse transparent nudges. Yet, transparent nudging may undermine human autonomy-a minority may oppose to being nudged and feel manipulated, even if they know what is happening. We propose an alternative way of maintaining autonomy that is not reducible to transparency: individuals can be asked if they consent in advance to being nudged. To assess whether consensual nudges are effective, we ask consent from 1518 UK citizens to be nudged. Subsequently, we default all participants into donating to a charity of their choice, irrespective of self-reported consent. We find that the default nudge is equally effective for both consenting and non-consenting individuals, with negligible difference in average donations. However, non-consenting individuals report higher levels of resentment and regret and lower levels of happiness and support compared to the consenting group. Based on these findings, we argue that ignoring consent can have serious ethical ramifications for policy-making with nudges.

Research with Refugee Populations in North America: Applying the NIH Guiding Principles for Ethical Research.

This article examines the ethics of research design and the initiation of a study (e.g., recruitment of participants) involving refugee participants. We aim to equip investigators and members of IRBs with a set of ethical considerations and pragmatic recommendations to address challenges in refugee-focused research as it is developed and prepared for IRB review. We discuss challenges including how refugees are being defined and identified; their vulnerabilities before, during, and following resettlement that impacts their research participation; recruitment; consent practices including assent and unaccompanied minors; and conflicts of interest. Ethical guidance and regulatory oversight provided by international bodies, federal governments, and IRBs are important for enforcing the protection of participants. We describe the need for additional ethical guidance and awareness, if not special protections for refugee populations as guided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Guiding Principles for Ethical Research.

Is there an impact of a video-based patient informed consent in elective hand surgery?

BACKGROUND: Patient informed consent is a crucial subject in preoperative care of patients before elective hand surgery, ensuring that patients have the necessary information and a comprehensive understanding to make autonomous decisions. The use of video-based informed consent systems is an innovative concept to enhance the consent process with multimedia tools. In addition to the conventional process, mostly relying on verbal communication and written documents, the video-based approach aims to present information in a standardized and visually appealing format. METHODS: In this study, 33 patients were asked to watch a video on a tablet about the planned elective hand surgery after a conventional pre-treatment consultation including informed consent throughout verbal explanations and paper forms by an attending physician or resident. All patients were asked to complete a questionnaire after watching the video. RESULTS: An overwhelming majority of participants, specifically 97.0%, stated that the video improved their understanding of the upcoming surgery. 90.9% of the participant would refer the video to other patients undergoing elective hand surgery, while 72.7% of participants indicated that they would have appreciated the opportunity to view an informational video before undergoing different types of surgeries in the past. CONCLUSION: The use of a video-based patient information system in elective hand surgery had a positive impact on patient education and satisfaction with the informed consent process. Therefore, it is a powerful tool in preoperative management to guarantee a standardized and educative informed consent.

[Informed consent in radiotherapy care]. / Consentement aux soins en radiothérapie.

Obtaining consent to care requires the radiation oncologist to provide loyal information and to ensure that the patient understands it. Proof of such an approach rests with the practitioner. The French Society for Radiation Oncology (SFRO) does not recommend the signature of a consent form by the patient but recommends that the radiation oncologist be able to provide all the elements demonstrating the reality of a complete information circuit.

Do patients actually understand? An evaluation of the informed consent process for endoscopic procedures in rural Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Improving surgical access in low- and middle-income countries is vital for the 5 billion people who lack safe surgical care. Tailoring a culturally sensitive approach to consent is essential for patient comprehension and comfort, thereby alleviating the effects of resource constraints and advancing equitable care. This study examines the consenting process for endoscopy at Kyabirwa Surgical Center in Kyabirwa, Jinja, Uganda, to assess patients' knowledge and attitudes as a potential barrier to participating in endoscopic procedures. METHODS: All adult upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy patients were recruited to participate in a survey of their demographics, knowledge, and attitudes toward their procedure. All patients received a standard consultation explaining the procedure and its risks and benefits. RESULTS: 75 patients were included; median age was 54 years and 56% (n = 42) were women. 92% (n = 69) of patients had never had an endoscopy before and 73% (n = 55) of patients were scheduled for an EGD while the remaining 27% (n = 20) were scheduled for a colonoscopy. Most patients 80% (n = 60) had a basic understanding of what an endoscopy is and 87% (n = 65) its diagnostic purpose. Few patients 15% (n = 11) knew of the most common side effects or if they would have a surgical scar 27% (n = 20). Overall, 46.7% (n = 35) of patients were moderately or severely fearful of getting an endoscopy. Additionally, 45.3% (n = 34) of patients were moderately or severely fearful of receiving anesthesia during their endoscopic procedure. Despite this fear, most patients 85.3% (n = 64) stated that they understood the benefits of the procedure either very well or extremely well. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients understood the role that an endoscopic procedure plays in their care and its potential benefits. Despite this, many patients continued to have high levels of fear associated with both the endoscopic procedure and with receiving anesthesia during their procedure. Future patient education should focus on addressing patients' fears and the risks of undergoing an endoscopy, which may improve the utilization of surgical services.

Developing an Ethics and Policy Framework for Psychedelic Clinical Care: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: As government agencies around the globe contemplate approval of the first psychedelic medicines, many questions remain about their ethical integration into mainstream medical practice. Objective: To identify key ethics and policy issues related to the eventual integration of psychedelic therapies into clinical practice. Evidence Review: From June 9 to 12, 2023, 27 individuals representing the perspectives of clinicians, researchers, Indigenous groups, industry, philanthropy, veterans, retreat facilitators, training programs, and bioethicists convened at the Banbury Center at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Prior to the meeting, attendees submitted key ethics and policy issues for psychedelic medicine. Responses were categorized into 6 broad topics: research ethics issues; managing expectations and informed consent; therapeutic ethics; training, education, and licensure of practitioners; equity and access; and appropriate role of gatekeeping. Attendees with relevant expertise presented on each topic, followed by group discussion. Meeting organizers (A.L.M., I.G.C., D.S.) drafted a summary of the discussion and recommendations, noting points of consensus and disagreement, which were discussed and revised as a group. Findings: This consensus statement reports 20 points of consensus across 5 ethical issues (reparations and reciprocity, equity, and respect; informed consent; professional boundaries and physical touch; personal experience; and gatekeeping), with corresponding relevant actors who will be responsible for implementation. Areas for further research and deliberation are also identified. Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement focuses on the future of government-approved medical use of psychedelic medicines in the US and abroad. This is an incredibly exciting and hopeful moment, but it is critical that policymakers take seriously the challenges ahead.

Future-proofing genomic data and consent management: a comprehensive review of technology innovations.

Genomic information is increasingly used to inform medical treatments and manage future disease risks. However, any personal and societal gains must be carefully balanced against the risk to individuals contributing their genomic data. Expanding our understanding of actionable genomic insights requires researchers to access large global datasets to capture the complexity of genomic contribution to diseases. Similarly, clinicians need efficient access to a patient's genome as well as population-representative historical records for evidence-based decisions. Both researchers and clinicians hence rely on participants to consent to the use of their genomic data, which in turn requires trust in the professional and ethical handling of this information. Here, we review existing and emerging solutions for secure and effective genomic information management, including storage, encryption, consent, and authorization that are needed to build participant trust. We discuss recent innovations in cloud computing, quantum-computing-proof encryption, and self-sovereign identity. These innovations can augment key developments from within the genomics community, notably GA4GH Passports and the Crypt4GH file container standard. We also explore how decentralized storage as well as the digital consenting process can offer culturally acceptable processes to encourage data contributions from ethnic minorities. We conclude that the individual and their right for self-determination needs to be put at the center of any genomics framework, because only on an individual level can the received benefits be accurately balanced against the risk of exposing private information.

Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients.

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.

Principal Features of Industry-Funded Trials that Posted Informed Consent Forms on ClinicalTrials.gov: a Cross-Sectional Analysis.

We aim to characterize industry-funded trials that have posted the informed consent forms (ICFs), and to assess whether the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' could impact several relevant variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov on all industry-funded trials registered on or before 25 February 2023. We registered types of intervention, current recruitment status, design, enrollment, and countries involved. For trials with special interest to potential participants and investigators and/or clinicians an analysis of the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' was performed. Of 116,281 industry-funded trials registered, 741 (0.6%) had posted ICFs. Most of these trials were categorized as 'completed' (n = 408) or 'terminated' (n = 107). The review of a sample of 359 trials showed that most were on drugs and/or biologics (59%), were randomized (51%), conducted exclusively in the USA (72%), and had posted results (79%), protocols (92%), and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) (89%). Trials in which industry participated as 'collaborator' were significantly more likely to post ICFs when trials were in the 'active, not recruiting' phase (OR 4.70, 99.71% CI 1.59-13.9, p < 0.001) than industry-sponsored trials. This was also the case when assessing drugs/biologics (OR 2.64, 99.71% CI 1.25-5.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, companies acting as 'sponsors' were significantly more likely to post ICFs with trials assessing devices, radiation interventions and/or diagnostic tests (OR 0.37, 99.71% CI 0.17-0.79, p < 0.001) than when participating as 'collaborators'. While industry-funded trials rarely post ICFs, when they do, they are highly compliant with transparency requirements. Regulations and ethics codes should consider requiring posting of protocols, SAPs, and ICFs for all clinical trials, regardless the type of sponsor.

Trial participants' self-reported understanding of randomisation phrases in participation information leaflets can be high, but acceptability of some descriptions is low, especially those linked to gambling and luck.

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that trial participants often struggle to understand participant information leaflets (PILs) for clinical trials, including the concept of randomisation. We analysed the language used to describe randomisation in PILs and determine the most understandable and acceptable description through public and participant feedback. METHODS: We collected 280 PILs/informed consent forms and one video animation from clinical research facilities/clinical trial units in Ireland and the UK. We extracted text on how randomisation was described, plus trial characteristics. We conducted content analysis to group the randomisation phrases inductively. We then excluded phrases that appeared more than once or were very similar to others. The final list of randomisation phrases was then presented to an online panel of participants and the public. Panel members were asked to rate each phrase on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of their understanding of the phrase, confidence in their understanding and acceptability of the phrase. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty PILs and the transcribed text from one video animation represented 229 ongoing or concluded trials. The pragmatic content analysis generated five inductive categories: (1) explanation of why randomisation is required in trials; (2) synonyms for randomisation; (3) comparative randomisation phrases; (4) elaborative phrases for randomisation (5) and phrases that describe the process of randomisation. We had 48 unique phrases, which were shared with 73 participants and members of the public. Phrases that were well understood were not necessarily acceptable. Participants understood, but disliked, comparative phrases that referenced gambling, e.g. toss of a coin, like a lottery, roll of a die. They also disliked phrases that attributed decision-making to computers or automated systems. Participants liked plain language descriptions of what randomisation is and those that did not use comparative phrases. CONCLUSIONS: Potential trial participants are clear on their likes and dislikes when it comes to describing randomisation in PILs. We make five recommendations for practice.