Cornerstone medical ethics guidelines get a major update

Cathleen O'Grady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu2384

IF: 56.9

2024-11-01

Science

Abstract:Revised Declaration of Helsinki stresses need to avoid inequities and protect healthy trial volunteers

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The 2008 Declaration of Helsinki - first among equals in research ethics?

Annette Rid,Harald Schmidt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00474.x

Abstract:The World Medical Association's (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki is one of the most important and influential international research ethics documents. Its most recent 2008 version declares unprecedented universal primacy over all existing national or international ethical, legal, or regulatory requirements. This self-proclaimed status as a set of minimal ethical standards raises important questions about the Declaration's appropriate normative status. The present paper argues that the new claim of ethical primacy is problematic and makes the Declaration unnecessarily vulnerable to criticism. Future revisions of the Declaration should therefore remove this claim and strengthen the document, first, by clarifying its normative status as a set of strong default recommendations, to be followed unless there is compelling ethical reason to do otherwise; and second, by improving the substance of the Declaration through further precision, specification, and argument.
Publication ethics of human studies in the light of the Declaration of Helsinki – a mini-review

Nadia Sawicka-Gutaj,Dawid Gruszczyński,Przemysław Guzik,Adrianna Mostowska,Jarosław Walkowiak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20883/medical.e700

2022-06-30

Journal of Medical Science

Abstract:The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles to be followed by scientists involved in medical research with humans or human cells and tissues. This Declaration defines how scientific research should be planned, carried out, documented, analysed, and published. We summarise and discuss some ethical issues related to publishing original articles, including clinical trials, review papers, and case reports based on the seventh revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki refer most strongly to the publication of medical research results, in particular clinical trials, as original articles. Such papers must meet several ethical requirements, especially the study protocol transparency and the presentation of the results. For case reports, the bioethical aspects related to their publication are twofold - they must include informed and voluntary consent and the confidentiality of study participants. The review papers are of the least bioethical concern. However, whether patients' agreements with specific studies are valid if the data are used in meta-analyses is uncertain. Adherence to ethical policies and standards helps to ensure the highest possible quality of scientific publications. Responsibility for compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki lies not only with the authors preparing their manuscripts but also with the editorial board and reviewers, who must evaluate the ethical soundness of the submitted papers. The additional guidelines for the different types of studies facilitate the implementation of the Declaration principles.
Managing conflicts of interest in the development of health guidelines

Gregory Traversy,Lianne Barnieh,Elie A. Akl,G. Michael Allan,Melissa Brouwers,Isabelle Ganache,Quinn Grundy,Gordon H. Guyatt,Diane Kelsall,Gillian Leng,Ainsley Moore,Navindra Persaud,Holger J. Schünemann,Sharon Straus,Brett D. Thombs,Rachel Rodin,Marcello Tonelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.200651

2021-01-11

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract:KEY POINTSPublic awareness regarding the importance of disclosing and managing conflicts of interest (COIs) during the development of clinical practice and public health guidelines is growing, owing to recent high-profile news stories within and outside Canada.[1][1]–[9][2] Despite the existence

medicine, general & internal
Radicalizing Clinical Trial Ethics through Partnership: Limitations and Strategies for Change

Brooke Danielle Daggao Johnson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/cr36647

2024-09-21

Abstract:Clinical trials are crucial in developing safe medical treatments and combating diseases. However, the ethical considerations surrounding research involving human subjects have been an ongoing topic of debate. Existing ethical policies aim to ensure the accuracy of research findings and protect the well-being of participants. Nevertheless, these policies have been rooted in Western scientific and medical systems, which historically exploited communities for the benefit of privileged individuals and capital accumulation, perpetuating domination and settler colonialism. While ethical policies alone cannot erase these harmful legacies, they have globally failed at holding researchers, companies, and institutions accountable for their impact on communities. This failure has led to exploitation and unintended harm in disenfranchised communities with under-resourced health systems and limited access to healthcare resources. To address these challenges, this literature review proposes integrating stricter regulations, transparent disclosure of trial results, and comprehensive post-trial care. Additionally, it advocates for including community partnerships in clinical trial ethics policies to prioritize community needs and promote accountability. By examining qualitative studies on the perspectives of patients, researchers, and clinicians involved in clinical trials, as well as the current state of clinical trial ethics policies, this paper suggests a partnership-based approach that can facilitate the development of new treatments while addressing historical legacies of exploitation and harm in disenfranchised communities worldwide.
A Revised Hippocratic Oath for the Era of Digital Health

Bertalan Meskó,Brennan Spiegel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/39177

2022-09-07

Abstract:Physicians have been taking the Hippocratic Oath for centuries. The Oath contains a set of ethical rules designed to guide physicians through their profession; it articulates a set of true north principles that govern the practice of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath has undergone several revisions, most notably in 1948 by the World Medical Association. However, in an era of rapid change in medicine, we believe it is time to update the Oath with modest but meaningful additions so that it optimally reflects 21st century health care. The rise of digital health has dramatically changed the practice of medicine in a way that could not have been easily predicted at the time Hippocrates outlined his ethical principles of medicine. Digital health is a broad term that encompasses use of digital devices and platforms, including electronic health records, patient-provider portals, mobile health apps, wearable biosensors, artificial intelligence, social media platforms, and medical extended reality, to improve the process and outcomes of health care delivery. These technologies have driven a cultural transformation in the delivery of care. We offer modest suggestions to help prompt discussion and contemplation about the current Oath and its relevancy to our changing times. Our suggestions are not meant to be a definitive set of final recommendations. Rather, we propose new text that bodies such as the World Medical Association might consider integrating into an updated Oath, just as previous changes were adopted to ensure the Oath remains relevant and impactful for all physicians and their patients.
ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update

Robin Lovell-Badge,Eric Anthony,Roger A. Barker,Tania Bubela,Ali H. Brivanlou,Melissa Carpenter,R. Alta Charo,Amander Clark,Ellen Clayton,Yali Cong,George Q. Daley,Jianping Fu,Misao Fujita,Andy Greenfield,Steve A. Goldman,Lori Hill,Insoo Hyun,Rosario Isasi,Jeffrey Kahn,Kazuto Kato,Jin-Soo Kim,Jonathan Kimmelman,Jürgen A. Knoblich,Debra Mathews,Nuria Montserrat,Jack Mosher,Megan Munsie,Hiromitsu Nakauchi,Luigi Naldini,Gail Naughton,Kathy Niakan,Ubaka Ogbogu,Roger Pedersen,Nicolas Rivron,Heather Rooke,Janet Rossant,Jeff Round,Mitinori Saitou,Douglas Sipp,Julie Steffann,Jeremy Sugarman,Azim Surani,Jun Takahashi,Fuchou Tang,Leigh Turner,Patricia J. Zettler,Xiaomei Zhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.05.012

2021-06-01

Stem Cell Reports

Abstract:The International Society for Stem Cell Research has updated its Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation in order to address advances in stem cell science and other relevant fields, together with the associated ethical, social, and policy issues that have arisen since the last update in 2016. While growing to encompass the evolving science, clinical applications of stem cells, and the increasingly complex implications of stem cell research for society, the basic principles underlying the Guidelines remain unchanged, and they will continue to serve as the standard for the field and as a resource for scientists, regulators, funders, physicians, and members of the public, including patients. A summary of the key updates and issues is presented here.

cell biology,cell & tissue engineering
Yet another guideline? The UNESCO draft declaration

Ruth Macklin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2005.00122.x

Abstract:Some people might argue that there are already too many different documents, guidelines, and regulations in bioethics. Some overlap with one another, some are advisory and lack legal force, others are legally binding in countries, and still others are directed at narrow topics within bioethics, such as HIV/AIDS and human genetics. As the latest document to enter the fray, the UNESCO Declaration has the widest scope of any previous document. It embraces not only research involving human beings, but addresses broader concerns in medicine and healthcare. The UNESCO draft declaration has some minor weaknesses, but on the whole, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. One weakness is that some items in the draft are stated in a way that is too restrictive, thereby appearing to rule out legitimate activities. A strength of the Declaration is that it is relatively brief, yet at the same time contains sufficient detail to make it something more than a rehearsal of mere pieties. As the most recent of the numerous bioethics and human rights documents, the UNESCO draft draws on many of the earlier documents and also includes some of the most recent thinking about ethical norms and obligations. Perhaps its greatest strength lies not in details of the principles or their implementation, but rather in its stature as an international declaration issued by a United Nations organization.
HHS Issues Revised Health Worker Conscience Rule

Karen Roush

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0001010532.15126.e4

2024-03-21

Abstract:The aim is to balance the rights of clinicians and patients.

nursing
An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials

Sally Hopewell,Isabelle Boutron,An-Wen Chan,Gary S. Collins,Jennifer A. de Beyer,Asbjørn Hróbjartsson,Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard,Lasse Østengaard,Kenneth F. Schulz,Ruth Tunn,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01989-8

IF: 82.9

2022-09-16

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Results from clinical trials can be deemed trustworthy only if they are properly conducted and their methods are fully reported. The SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, which have improved clinical trial design, conduct and reporting, are being updated to reflect recent advances and improve the assessment of healthcare interventions.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
Research ethics and the medical profession. Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments

IF: 11.816

1996-08-07

JAMA

Abstract:The Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments was convened by President Clinton in January 1994 in response to allegations of unethical practices in radiation experiments involving human subjects that were sponsored by the US government between 1944 and 1974. The committee's Final Report was released in October 1995. In addition to analyzing the history of the ethics of medical research involving human subjects, the committee reviewed current federal policies and procedures for protection of human subjects. In this article, the committee's findings are discussed as they relate to the patient-physician relationship, the issue of trust, and the specific role of the physician-investigator in all types of human experimentation. The committee found evidence of discussion of the conduct of human research at the highest levels of the government and within the medical profession, particularly with regard to risk, during the 1940s and 1950s. However, in both federal policy and professional practice, requirements for consent were more likely to apply to "healthy volunteers" than to patient-subjects (ie, those with disease or illness). Today, consensus exists that duties to obtain informed consent apply to all human subjects, whether healthy or sick, regardless of the risk or potential for medical benefit from participation in the research and regardless of the nature of sponsorship or funding (eg, federal, military, or private). Based on a finding of serious deficiencies in the current system of protections for human subjects, the committee offers a number of recommendations, including changes in institutional review boards; in the interpretation of ethics rules and policies; in oversight, accountability, and sanctions for ethics violations; and in compensation for research injuries. More than public policy changes, however, the committee recommends that the medical profession intensify its commitment to the ethics of research involving human subjects.
Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

Mark Yarborough

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00170-8

Abstract:There is substantial published evidence showing that countless people enroll each year in ethically deficient clinical trials. Many of the trials are problematic because the quality of the science used to justify their launch may not be sufficiently vetted while many other trials may lack requisite social value. This poses the question: why do people volunteer for them? The answer resides in large part in the fact that informed consent practices have historically masked, rather than disclosed, the information that would alert research candidates to the ethically problematic nature of the trials. The "reasonable person" and "key information" provisions in the revised US Common Rule create the opportunity to correct this historical shortcoming. Two sources are employed to shed light on what the "key information" is that should be disclosed to a "reasonable person": the original disclosure aims of the Nuremberg Code, as well as an extensive body of meta-research evidence. Those sources jointly support a range of new disclosures in the informed consent process that would unmask the heretofore undisclosed information. The resulting proposed new disclosures pertain to the overall success prospects of clinical trials, the quality of the prior research that both forms the basis of clinical trials and informs assessment of their risks and benefits, the potential social value of clinical trials, and the commercial purposes of clinical trials.
A review of the ethical issues related to the use of placebo controls in conducting clinical trials

杨镓宁,江华,钟晓蓉,史宗道

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-2531.2003.03.008

2003-01-01

Abstract:Controversy exists regarding the ethics of using placebo control groups in clinical trials when effective treatments exist. The debate was fueled by the announcement of the 5th revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (2000). This study reviews the history and scientific background surrounding the controversy and investigates the prevailing attitudes of Hong Kong researchers regarding this issue. The controversy has centered on a few issues. The first involves the methodological superiority of placebo-controlled trials in discerning treatment effects. Secondly, it is unclear if the treatment effects encompass absolute treatment effects (including placebo effects) or are confined to treatment-specific effects (excluding placebo effects). Thirdly, there are worries that subjects in the placebo group could be exposed to higher risk for developing serious adverse events. Fourthly, it is debated whether the standard of best available treatment should be a local one, or an international one. Preliminary research findings suggest that the opinions of the Hong Kong researchers seemed to be divided on the use of placebo control groups in clinical trials when effective treatment exists. Further researcher on the topic is therefore warranted, training and consensus meeting may be necessary to minimize the confusion related to this issue.
A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review

Allyson C. Rosen,James A. Lavacot,Victoria Klee,Yuval Luria,Malia Rumbaugh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-240634

2024-07-20

Journal of Alzheimer s Disease

Abstract:Ethics Review began a decade ago with a mission to identify ethical concerns that hold back innovation and to promote solutions that would move the field forward. Over this time, blood biomarkers for brain pathology and medications that treat that pathology promise to transform research and care. A central problem is that the evidence needed to guide test interpretation and practice is accumulating and there are unanswered questions. At the same time, people living with and at risk for dementia want access to their test results and involvement in their care. We promote dialog among diverse people across many institutions through collaboration with the Advisory Group on Risk Evidence Education for Dementia (AGREEDementia.org). Over the years Ethics Review continues to publish these dialogs and solutions to overcome the paralysis of indecision and ethical concerns.

neurosciences
Ethical and moral principles for oncology healthcare workers: A brief report from a Bioethics consortium emphasizing on need for education

Manjeshwar S Baliga,Vijaya Marakala,Lal P Madathil,Thomas George,Russell F D'souza,Princy L Palatty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1048_23

2024-04-29

Abstract:The medical sub-specialty of Oncology presents diverse ethical dilemmas, often challenging cancer healthcare workers with difficult-to-handle clinical scenarios that are tough from a personal and professional perspective. Making decisions on patient care in various circumstances is a defining obligation of an oncologist and those duty-based judgments entail more than just selecting the best treatment or solution. Ethics is an essential and inseparable aspect of clinical medicine and the oncologists as well as the allied health care workers are ethically committed to helping the patient, avoiding or minimizing harm, and respecting the patient's values and choices. This review provides an overview of ethics and clinical ethics and the four main ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are stated and explained. At times there are frequently contradictions between ethical principles in patient care scenarios, especially between beneficence and autonomy. In addition, truth-telling, professionalism, empathy, and cultural competence; which are recently considered important in cancer care, are also addressed from an Indian perspective.
Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine

Ana Borovecki,Ana Mlinaric,Martina Horvat,Vesna Supak Smolcic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2018.030201

2019-10-07

Biochemia Medica

Abstract:Research Integrity Corner by Ana Borovecki, Ana Mlinaric, Martina Horvat, Vesna Supak Smolcic

medical laboratory technology
Ethics and accountability for clinical trials

Tanya A. Barretto,Wolfram Tetzlaff,Judy Illes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-024-00980-z

2024-03-19

Spinal Cord

Abstract:In May 2023, a disclaimer posted on ClinicalTrials.gov dismisses accountability for the accuracy of registered information. For spinal cord injury, inconsistencies in intervention classification, phase designation, and lack of study protocols and results threaten the integrity of the database and put users at risk. An investment in what the resource should be rather than what it is not will give it the authority commensurate with the requirements for its regulatory use and informed decision-making for prospective trial participants.

clinical neurology,rehabilitation
Good clinical practice, a transparent way of life. A review

A J van Dongen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-6111(00)00051-3

Abstract:Investigators are regarded as central to the concept of clinical trials. Apart from bearing scientific responsibility, they will be confronted with a great number of ethical dilemma's concerning, amongst others, the justification and design of the trial, subject selection and informed consent, and presentation of the trial results. The ethical principles of biomedical research should be observed in accordance with a consistent moral code. The moral code of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) was developed in order to rule out inconsistencies. The principal tenets are that clinical trials should be good science, verifiable, monitored, well documented, and that they comply with the highest ethical standards. The principles of GCP are the protection of the rights of human subjects, integrity and reproducibility of data, and transparency of conduct.
Perspectives on the New ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation

Erica C. Jonlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-018-0138-4

2018-08-02

Current Stem Cell Reports

Abstract:Purpose of ReviewThis review seeks to highlight key elements of the ISSCR 2016 Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation, describe apparent influences on the Guidelines, provide an analysis of the utility and the potential impact of the Guidelines on the field of stem cell research, and propose considerations for the future versions of the Guidelines.Recent FindingsPart ethical code of conduct, part “how-to” instructions, and part policy declaration, this version of the Guidelines forms ISSCR’s most up-to-date recommendations and guidance on the topic of stem cell clinical translation.SummaryIn the revised set of Guidelines, ISSCR has asserted the imperative of maintaining the highest ethical standards for clinical translation of stem cell research. The Guidelines set a sound foundation for self-regulation, not only communicating the Society’s position on what is legitimate stem cell research/treatment and what is not, but also fulfilling ISSCR’s mission of providing professional (and public) education regarding the specific steps that should be taken to translate basic research findings to the clinic. Future versions would benefit from more extensive references, including hyperlinks to regulatory authority guidance documents; and improved clarity of the writing style, including avoidance of vague descriptions and the addition of flow charts and/or tables.
A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance

Kathryn Skivington,Lynsay Matthews,Sharon Anne Simpson,Peter Craig,Janis Baird,Jane M. Blazeby,Kathleen Anne Boyd,Neil Craig,David P. French,Emma McIntosh,Mark Petticrew,Jo Rycroft-Malone,Martin White,Laurence Moore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104705

IF: 8.1

2024-02-01

International Journal of Nursing Studies

Abstract:The UK Medical Research Council's widely used guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions has been replaced by a new framework, commissioned jointly by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, which takes account of recent developments in theory and methods and the need to maximise the efficiency, use, and impact of research.

nursing
Ethics and adolescent care: an international perspective

Pierre-André Michaud,Kristina Berg-Kelly,Aidan Macfarlane,Lazare Benaroyo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/mop.0b013e32833b53ec

2010-08-01

Current Opinion in Pediatrics

Abstract:PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This update reviews the concepts underlying ethical issues in various contexts and countries, highlighting the evolution in the use of the core values underpinning the field and practice of bioethics as applied to healthcare.RECENT FINDINGS: It stresses the specific position of the adolescent as being a unique individual searching for autonomy and, most of the time, being competent to make decisions regarding the adolescent's own health. It briefly outlines the principles of a 'deliberative' approach in which the practitioner, while keeping in mind the legal context of the country where the practitioner is working, assesses to what extent the adolescent can be considered as competent, and then discusses with the adolescent the medical and psychosocial aspects of the various actions to be taken in a situation, as well as the basic ethical values linked with each of the various options available. The deliberation can involve relevant stakeholders, provided the issues concerning confidentiality have been fully discussed with the adolescent.SUMMARY: This process forces the practitioner, the adolescent patient and those who care for the adolescent patient to look outside their usual frameworks and make a decision that is in the best interest of the young person, and is informed by various ethical values.

pediatrics

Cornerstone medical ethics guidelines get a major update

The 2008 Declaration of Helsinki - first among equals in research ethics?

Publication ethics of human studies in the light of the Declaration of Helsinki – a mini-review

Managing conflicts of interest in the development of health guidelines

Radicalizing Clinical Trial Ethics through Partnership: Limitations and Strategies for Change

A Revised Hippocratic Oath for the Era of Digital Health

ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation: The 2021 update

Yet another guideline? The UNESCO draft declaration

HHS Issues Revised Health Worker Conscience Rule

An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials

Research ethics and the medical profession. Report of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments

Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

A review of the ethical issues related to the use of placebo controls in conducting clinical trials

A Decade of Protecting Progress: Ethics Review

Ethical and moral principles for oncology healthcare workers: A brief report from a Bioethics consortium emphasizing on need for education

Informed consent and ethics committee approval in laboratory medicine

Ethics and accountability for clinical trials

Good clinical practice, a transparent way of life. A review

Perspectives on the New ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation

A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance

Ethics and adolescent care: an international perspective