Evaluation of the work of hospital districts' research ethics committees in Finland.

The main task of research ethics committees (RECs) is to assess research studies before their start. In this study, 24 RECs that evaluate medical research were sent questionnaires about their structure and functions. The RECs were divided into two separate groups: those working in university hospital districts (uRECs) and those in central hospital districts (non-uRECs). The two groups were different in many respects: the uRECs were bigger in size, covered a wider range of disciplines (both medical and non-medical), had better resources and more frequent and regular meetings. After the survey was performed and analysed, the Medical Research Act was amended so that only hospital districts with a medical faculty in their region had a duty to establish ethics committees. After the amendment, the number of RECs evaluating medical research in Finland decreased from 25 to 9. The ethics committees that remained had wider expertise and were better equipped already by the time of this survey. Only one non-uREC was continuing its work, and this was being done under the governance of a university hospital district. Simple measures were used for qualitative analysis of the work of RECs that evaluate medical research. These showed differences between RECs. This may be helpful in establishing an ethics committee network in a research field or administrational area.

Ethically problematic treatment decisions: a physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Experiencing ethical problems requires both ethically problematic situations and ethical sensitivity. Ethically problematic treatment decisions are distressing and might reflect health care quality problems. Whether all physicians actually experience ethical problems, what these problems are and how they vary according to physician age, gender and work sector are largely unknown. METHODS: A mail survey of all non-retired physicians licensed in Finland (n = 17,172, response rate 75.6%). RESULTS: The proportion of physicians reporting having made ethically problematic treatment decisions decreased in linear fashion from 60% at ages below 30 years to 21% at ages over 63 years. The only problem that did not decrease in frequency with age was having withdrawn necessary treatments. Women and primary care physicians reported problematic decisions most often, although gender differences were small. Primary care physicians most often reported having performed too many investigations or having pressured patients, whereas hospital physicians emphasized having withdrawn necessary treatments. Performing unnecessary treatments or investigations was explained by pressure from patients or relatives, and performing too few treatments or investigations was explained by inadequate resources. CONCLUSIONS: In general, young physicians felt pressured to do too much, whereas older physicians felt they could not do enough due to inadequate resources. Older physicians might be less exposed to ethically problematic situations, be more able to handle them or have lower ethical sensitivity. Young physicians could benefit from support in resisting pressure to perform unnecessary treatments, whereas older physicians might benefit from training in recognizing ethical issues.

Assessing the ethics of medical research in emergency settings: how do international regulations work in practice?

Different ethical principles conflict in research conducted in emergency research. Clinical care and its development should be based on research. Patients in critical clinical condition are in the greatest need of better medicines. The critical condition of the patient and the absence of a patient representative at the critical time period make it difficult and sometimes impossible to request an informed consent before the beginning of the trial. In an emergency, care decisions must be made in a short period of time, and the more time is wasted, the more the risk of death or severe tissue damage and incapacity increases. Consent requests take time, and so the time period before treatment might put the patient's life in jeopardy. Not requesting consent before a trial is also contradictory. A person should not be forced to participate in a trial against his or her will. Due to the dark history of medical research previously, international declarations and conventions have set up ethical principles for medical research. They emphasize the autonomy of the research participant--or his or her legal representative--to give a free and informed consent prior to the initiation of research. In the case of a critical emergency, the unconscious state of the patient, the emotional stress of family members or the lack of time to start life-sustaining measures may often restrict the possibilities of communicating with the patient or his/her representative. Therefore, written informed consent is difficult to achieve, and its voluntariness in emergency situations is, at best, open to question. The mortality of patients is high without clinical interventions in emergency research. Random selection of patients is difficult and requires extra work from personnel in the emergency rooms. Recruitment, information and asking for consent may also take time, postpone the initiation of treatment and increase the risk of death and irreversible tissue and organ damage, and therefore be risky for the patient. It is therefore essential that the health care professionals recruiting suitable research participants are well motivated and well trained. Medical research in an emergency setting should always be regarded as an exceptional situation requiring special provisions. Only such research should be done as cannot be done in other conditions. An independent body must approve the research protocol and the ways in which the consent of the participant or proxy are to be sought. In addition, the trial must be expected to result in direct and significant benefit for the research participants. If research without prior consent is not approved, the development of emergency care is threatened. On the other hand, if prior consent is not required, a person could be recruited into a clinical trial against his or her will. Doing good and avoiding harm, and respecting the autonomy of the patient are in conflict in the context of emergency medical research. To develop better medicines for patients experiencing acute medical emergencies, research into such conditions should be allowed. Research participants should have the possibility to participate or refuse to participate in research that may benefit them and other patients. The risk of irreversible damage occurring as the consequence of time delays for seeking consent is unacceptable. A prior wish about participation in clinical trials should be respected, if known. The conditions under which medical research in emergencies can be considered acceptable can be determined and agreed upon nationally and internationally.

Children and medical research.

A considerable proportion of medical treatments for children are based on estimates and assumptions rather than clinical evidence. Clinical research on children provokes intensive discussion internationally. While children are protected from the risks of clinical trials, they are hindered from receiving the benefits of pharmaceutical innovations obtained by adults. The recruitment of children into research trials is more complicated than that of adults for several reasons: 1) the physical size and relative water content of the body differs not just compared to adults but also amongst subgroups of children making the group of potential participants relatively small; 2) diseases common among adults may be rare among children and vice versa; 3) children's ability to understand the significance of a study varies and depends on the age and developmental stage of the child; and 4) depending on the level of understanding, differing views have been given on the degree of respect that should be paid to a child's right to consent, assent, or refuse to participate in a trial. We suggest that: 1) the number of children recruited in research trials should be kept as small as possible, but large enough to enable scientifically valid results; 2) special training should be made mandatory for researchers who study diseases of children; 3) children or adolescents should participate in decision-making that concerns them whenever possible; and 4) in minor procedures, the consent of just one parent is sufficient.

Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland.

AIM: Currently, the only metabolic disorder that newborns are screened for in Finland is congenital hypothyroidism. A proposal to start a pilot study on screening for other rare metabolic diseases using tandem mass spectrometry prompted a health technology assessment project on the effect and costs of expanded newborn screening programme options. METHOD: A modelling study using data from current published studies, healthcare registers and expert opinion. RESULTS: The annual running cost of screening 56,000 newborns for the chosen five disorders (congenital adrenal hyperplasia, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency [MCADD], long chain 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency [LCHADD], phenylketonuria [PKU] and glutaric aciduria type 1 [GA 1]) was estimated to be euros 2.5 million or euros 45 per newborn when starting costs were included. The costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained are a maximum of euros 25,500. Prevention of severe handicap in one newborn would reduce the costs to a maximum of euros 18,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the Finnish neonatal screening programme would require a new organization. The cost-effectiveness, resources, ethics and equity need to be considered when deciding in favour of or against starting a new screening programme.

The role of national ethics commissions in Finland.

There are six national ethics commissions in Finland. The National Advisory Board on Research Ethics was first established in 1991, followed by the National Advisory Board on Biotechnology and the Board on Gene Technology in 1995. The National Advisory Board on Health Care Ethics was established in 1998, followed by its Sub-Committee on Medical Research Ethics in 1999. The Co-operation Group for Laboratory Animal Sciences was established in 2001. Only the Board on Gene Technology works as a national authority and gives binding opinions and recommendations about the use of genetically modified organisms. The Sub-Committee on Medical Research Ethics acts a national research ethics committee and gives opinions about research projects. Other advisory boards do not make legally binding decisions, but their expertise gives a lot of power to their opinions and statements. The commissions work in close collaboration with each other, having regular meetings. They arrange seminars and conferences, and share information with each other. The commissions also share duties and information in international collaboration. How the voice and opinions of these commissions is heard in society lies in the wide, multi-professional expertise of their members. Large commissions and wide expertise may make it difficult to find consensus in their opinions and statements, although wide expertise may, more than discussion in a small expert group, help to further process difficult ethical issues. Collaboration between different bodies is important in order to share duties, and also to add more emphasis to the statements and opinions where different bodies share interests. In our country, the interest that national commissions share is research ethics, where the advisory boards and their members have discharged collaborative activities for years.