What do international ethics guidelines say in terms of the scope of medical research ethics?

BACKGROUND: In research ethics, the most basic question would always be, "which is an ethical issue, which is not?" Interestingly, depending on which ethics guideline we consult, we may have various answers to this question. Though we already have several international ethics guidelines for biomedical research involving human participants, ironically, we do not have a harmonized document which tells us what these various guidelines say and shows us the areas of consensus (or lack thereof). In this manuscript, we attempted to do just that. METHODS: We extracted the imperatives from five internationally-known ethics guidelines and took note where the imperatives came from. In doing so, we gathered data on how many guidelines support a specific imperative. RESULTS: We found that there is no consensus on the majority of the imperatives and that in only 8.2% of the imperatives were there at least moderate consensus (i.e., consensus of at least 3 of the 5 ethics guidelines). Of the 12 clusters (Basic Principles; Research Collaboration; Social Value; Scientific Validity; Participant Selection; Favorable Benefit/Risk Ratio; Independent Review; Informed Consent; Respect for Participants; Publication and Registration; Regulatory Sanctions; and Justified Research on the Vulnerable Population), Informed Consent has the highest level of consensus and Research Collaboration and Regulatory Sanctions have the least. CONCLUSION: There was a lack of consensus in the majority of imperatives from the five internationally-known ethics guidelines. This may be partly explained by the differences among the guidelines in terms of their levels of specification as well as conceptual/ideological differences

The social licence for data-intensive health research: towards co-creation, public value and trust

BACKGROUND: The rise of Big Data-driven health research challenges the assumed contribution of medical research to the public good, raising questions about whether the status of such research as a common good should be taken for granted, and how public trust can be preserved. Scandals arising out of sharing data during medical research have pointed out that going beyond the requirements of law may be necessary for sustaining trust in data-intensive health research. We propose building upon the use of a social licence for achieving such ethical governance. MAIN TEXT: We performed a narrative review of the social licence as presented in the biomedical literature. We used a systematic search and selection process, followed by a critical conceptual analysis. The systematic search resulted in nine publications. Our conceptual analysis aims to clarify how societal permission can be granted to health research projects which rely upon the reuse and/or linkage of health data. These activities may be morally demanding. For these types of activities, a moral legitimation, beyond the limits of law, may need to be sought in order to preserve trust. Our analysis indicates that a social licence encourages us to recognise a broad range of stakeholder interests and perspectives in data-intensive health research. This is especially true for patients contributing data. Incorporating such a practice paves the way towards an ethical governance, based upon trust. Public engagement that involves patients from the start is called for to strengthen this social licence. CONCLUSIONS: There are several merits to using the concept of social licence as a guideline for ethical governance. Firstly, it fits the novel scale of data-related risks; secondly, it focuses attention on trustworthiness; and finally, it offers co-creation as a way forward. Greater trust can be achieved in the governance of data-intensive health research by highlighting strategic dialogue with both patients contributing the data, and the public in general. This should ultimately contribute to a more ethical practice of governance

Patients' and Publics' Preferences for Data-Intensive Health Research Governance: Survey Study

Background: Patients and publics are generally positive about data-intensive health research. However, conditions need to be fulfilled for their support. Ensuring confidentiality, security, and privacy of patients’ health data is pivotal. Patients and publics have concerns about secondary use of data by commercial parties and the risk of data misuse, reasons for which they favor personal control of their data. Yet, the potential of public benefit highlights the potential of building trust to attenuate these perceptions of harm and risk. Nevertheless, empirical evidence on how conditions for support of data-intensive health research can be operationalized to that end remains scant. Objective: This study aims to inform efforts to design governance frameworks for data-intensive health research, by gaining insight into the preferences of patients and publics for governance policies and measures. Methods: We distributed a digital questionnaire among a purposive sample of patients and publics. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and nonparametric inferential statistics to compare group differences and explore associations between policy preferences. Results: Study participants (N=987) strongly favored sharing their health data for scientific health research. Personal decision-making about which research projects health data are shared with (346/980, 35.3%), which researchers/organizations can have access (380/978, 38.9%), and the provision of information (458/981, 46.7%) were found highly important. Health data–sharing policies strengthening direct personal control, like being able to decide under which conditions health data are shared (538/969, 55.5%), were found highly important. Policies strengthening collective governance, like reliability checks (805/967, 83.2%) and security safeguards (787/976, 80.6%), were also found highly important. Further analysis revealed that participants willing to share health data, to a lesser extent, demanded policies strengthening direct personal control than participants who were reluctant to share health data. This was the case for the option to have health data deleted at any time (P<.001) and the ability to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared (P<.001). Overall, policies and measures enforcing conditions for support at the collective level of governance, like having an independent committee to evaluate requests for access to health data (P=.02), were most strongly favored. This also applied to participants who explicitly stressed that it was important to be able to decide the conditions under which health data can be shared, for instance, whether sanctions on data misuse are in place (P=.03). Conclusions: This study revealed that both a positive attitude toward health data sharing and demand for personal decision-making abilities were associated with policies and measures strengthening control at the collective level of governance. We recommend pursuing the development of this type of governance policy. More importantly, further study is required to understand how governance policies and measures can contribute to the trustworthiness of data-intensive health research

Changing Practices in the Use of Continuous Sedation at the End of Life: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Context: The use of continuous sedation until death (CSD) has been highly debated for many years. It is unknown how the use of CSD evolves over time. Reports suggest that there is an international increase in the use of CSD for terminally ill patients. Objective: To gain insight in developments in the use of CSD in various countries and subpopulations. Methods: We performed a search of the literature published between January 2000 and April 2020, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library by using the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols guidelines. The search contained the following terms: continuous sedation, terminal sedation, palliative sedation, deep sedation, end-of-life sedation, sedation practice, and sedation until death. Results: We found 23 articles on 16 nationwide studies and 38 articles on 37 subpopulation studies. In nationwide studies on frequencies of CSD in deceased persons varied from 3% in Denmark in 2001 to 18% in The Netherlands in 2015. Nationwide studies indicate an increase in the use of CSD. Frequencies of CSD in the different subpopulations varied too widely to observe time trends. Over the years, more studies reported on the use of CSD for nonphysical symptoms including fear, anxiety, and psycho-existential distress. In some studies, there was an increase in requests for sedation of patients from their families. Conclusions: The frequency of CSD seems to increase over time, possibly partly because of an extension of indications for sedation, from mainly physical symptoms to also nonphysical symptoms

Towards clinical application of implantable brain–computer interfaces for people with late-stage ALS: medical and ethical considerations

Individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) frequently develop speech and communication problems in the course of their disease. Currently available augmentative and alternative communication technologies do not present a solution for many people with advanced ALS, because these devices depend on residual and reliable motor activity. Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) use neural signals for computer control and may allow people with late-stage ALS to communicate even when conventional technology falls short. Recent years have witnessed fast progression in the development and validation of implanted BCIs, which place neural signal recording electrodes in or on the cortex. Eventual widespread clinical application of implanted BCIs as an assistive communication technology for people with ALS will have significant consequences for their daily life, as well as for the clinical management of the disease, among others because of the potential interaction between the BCI and other procedures people with ALS undergo, such as tracheostomy. This article aims to facilitate responsible real-world implementation of implanted BCIs. We review the state of the art of research on implanted BCIs for communication, as well as the medical and ethical implications of the clinical application of this technology. We conclude that the contribution of all BCI stakeholders, including clinicians of the various ALS-related disciplines, will be needed to develop procedures for, and shape the process of, the responsible clinical application of implanted BCIs

Toward responsible clinical n-of-1 strategies for rare diseases

N-of-1 strategies can provide high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy at the individual level and optimize evidence-based selection of off-label treatments for patients with rare diseases. Given their design characteristics, n-of-1 strategies are considered to lay at the intersection between medical research and clinical care. Therefore, whether n-of-1 strategies should be governed by research or care regulations remains a debated issue. Here, we delineate differences between medical research and optimized clinical care, and distinguish the regulations which apply to either. We also set standards for responsible optimized clinical n-of-1 strategies with (off-label) treatments for rare diseases. Implementing clinical n-of-1 strategies as defined here could aid in optimized treatment selection for such diseases

Toward responsible clinical n-of-1 strategies for rare diseases

N-of-1 strategies can provide high-quality evidence of treatment efficacy at the individual level and optimize evidence-based selection of off-label treatments for patients with rare diseases. Given their design characteristics, n-of-1 strategies are considered to lay at the intersection between medical research and clinical care. Therefore, whether n-of-1 strategies should be governed by research or care regulations remains a debated issue. Here, we delineate differences between medical research and optimized clinical care, and distinguish the regulations which apply to either. We also set standards for responsible optimized clinical n-of-1 strategies with (off-label) treatments for rare diseases. Implementing clinical n-of-1 strategies as defined here could aid in optimized treatment selection for such diseases