Charles Weijer

Emergency medicine research requires the enrollment of subjects with varying decision-making capacities, including capable adults, adults incapacitated by illness or injury, and children. These different categories of subjects are protected by multiple federal regulations. These include the federal Common Rule, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regulations for pediatric research, and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Final Rule for the Exception from the Requirements of Informed Consent in Emergency Situations. Investigators should be familiar with the relevant federal research regulations to optimally protect vulnerable research subjects, and to facilitate the institutional review board (IRB) review process. IRB members face particular challenges in reviewing emergency research. No regulations exist for research enrolling incapacitated subjects using proxy consent. The wording of the Final Rule may not optimally protect vulnerable subjects. It is also difficult to apply conflicting regulations to a single study that enrolls subjects with differing decision-making capacities. This article is intended as a guide for emergency researchers and IRB members who review emergency research. It reviews the elements of Federal Regulations that apply to consent, subject selection, privacy protection, and the analysis of risks and benefits in all emergency research. It explores the challenges for IRB review listed above, and offers potential solutions to these problems.

Procedures for the selection of subjects for participation in randomized clinical trials--usually formalized as eligibility criteria in the study protocol--have both scientific and ethical implications. In this thesis, I undertake an examination of eligibility criteria at three stages in the genesis and dissemination of medical knowledge: clinical trial protocol, interpretation by investigators, and reporting of study results. In the first chapter, ethical issues in subject selection are reviewed and the main study questions are presented. In the second chapter, the results of an examination of eligibility criteria in two sets of clinical trials, one sponsored by the NSABP, the other sponsored by POG, covering a twenty-year time span are presented. The POG trials had far fewer eligibility criteria than the NSABP studies, suggesting that large numbers of criteria may not be necessary for high quality research. In the third chapter, the impact of subjective eligibility criteria on enrollment and investigator uncertainty is explored. Subjective criteria were associated with more variable enrollment decisions and greater uncertainty. Such criteria represent a threat to the validity, conduct and interpretation of trials and, therefore, should only be included when carefully justified. The fourth chapter examines the accuracy of the reporting of eligibility criteria in sets of corresponding study protocol, methods paper, journal article, and Clinical Alert. Important information is lost at each step in the dissemination of study results. Unnecessary criteria ought to be dropped at a trial's inception; all other criteria must be reported faithfully. The fifth chapter attempts to provide a comprehensive philosophical account of just selection procedures for clinical research using the political philosophy of Michael Walzer. The sixth, and last, chapter, discusses explanatory and pragmatic approaches to clinical trial design, overlapping scientific and ethical concerns related to eligibility criteria, and questions for further study.

The definition of the study population for a clinical trial via the criteria for trial eligibility has implications for the validity of the study and its applicability to clinical practice. Though issues of equity regarding the selection of subjects for research have long been a concern of ethicists, issues regarding the impact of subject selection on a trial's generalizability have only recently attracted ethical scrutiny. After a review of the history of the ethics of subject selection, I focus on three empirical questions regarding the generalizability of clinical trials. (1) What proportion of diseased populations are studied in clinical trials? (2) How are subjects selected for clinical trial participation (and what are the main barriers to participation)? (3) Are clinical trial participants comparable to non-participants? Finally, the role of the Institutional Review Board--Research Ethics Board in Canada--in assessing the generalizability of clinical research is discussed.

The existing EELS literature has usefully identified the scope of ethical issues posed by pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic research. The time has come for in-depth examination of particular ethical issues. The involvement of racial and ethnic communities in pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic research is contentious precisely because it touches upon the science and politics of studying racial and ethnic difference. To date, the ethics literature has not seriously taken account of the fact that such research impinges upon the interests of communities, and that taking such interests seriously requires that we both protect and empower communities in research. We propose a framework that rests upon the recognition that communities are heterogeneous human associations and differing policies are appropriate for differing communities. Community consent and consultation and community consultation alone are neither appropriate nor required for all pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic research. Rather, application of these policy protections must take into account particulars of both planned research and the communities involved

Issues: We present key aspects of our paper, commissioned by UNAIDS in 2005, entitled, “Revisiting the ethics of HIV prevention research in developing countries.” In 2004 and 2005 we witnessed the closure or suspension of three international clinical trials testing tenofovir in the prevention of HIV infection in high risk groups due to the failure to provide free treatment to those who seroconvert during the conduct of the study. We examine critically moral claims for the provision of treatment to those who seroconvert in HIV prevention trials and ask whether it is a matter of moral obligation or moral negotiation?Description: Using the tools of philosophical and regulatory analysis we examine the moral foundations of research ethics, international regulation, and the contemporary literature in search of valid arguments in support of a moral obligation to treat. Arguments supporting the obligation to provide such treatment are found in a wide variety of documents. These claims are variously rooted in the demand to compensate for research-related injury, maximization of research benefit, justice as reciprocity, and justice as equality.Lessons learned: Our analysis reveals that there is as of yet no robust moral argument supporting a moral obligation to provide treatment to participants in HIV prevention trials who seroconvert. We argue that moral negotiation offers distinct advantages over moral obligation. Moral negotiation finds support in the principle of respect for communities that holds researchers responsible to respect communal values, protect and empower social institutions and abide by the decisions of accepted communal authorities.Recommendations: Moral negotiation, rather than moral obligation, reduces the chance of polarization of positions by inviting trial participants, sponsors, researchers and all other involved parties to the table for discussion. Moral negotiation favors middle ground solutions that fit the specific health needs and priorities of the community in question