研究中放弃知情同意的历史与政策演变。

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q3 LAW Journal of Legal Medicine Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464
Austin Connor Kassels, Jon F Merz
{"title":"研究中放弃知情同意的历史与政策演变。","authors":"Austin Connor Kassels,&nbsp;Jon F Merz","doi":"10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We examine the evolution of policies permitting exceptions to or waivers of informed consent for research in the United States. This review reveals that (1) exceptions to the duty to secure informed consent were originally quite narrow; (2) there were two alternative approaches to allowing research on human subjects without their prospective consent: (i) exceptions in which individual capacity to consent is to be assessed and consent tailored to each person's abilities and (ii) waivers of the general requirement for a population of potential subjects, where securing prospective consent would \"destroy or invalidate\" critically important research; (3) waivers only appeared in the final rulemakings for research regulations issued by the National Institute of Education in 1974 and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1981, limiting the opportunity for the public to weigh in on the scope and use of waivers; and (4) rules adopted since 1981 have almost uniformly added extra requirements to justify waivers. Examples drawn from recent research show expansion of the use of waivers far beyond the bounds originally envisioned. Greater transparency about the use of waivers is needed for the public to weigh in on the standards for foregoing informed consent in human research.</p>","PeriodicalId":44014,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The History and Policy Evolution of Waivers of Informed Consent in Research.\",\"authors\":\"Austin Connor Kassels,&nbsp;Jon F Merz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We examine the evolution of policies permitting exceptions to or waivers of informed consent for research in the United States. This review reveals that (1) exceptions to the duty to secure informed consent were originally quite narrow; (2) there were two alternative approaches to allowing research on human subjects without their prospective consent: (i) exceptions in which individual capacity to consent is to be assessed and consent tailored to each person's abilities and (ii) waivers of the general requirement for a population of potential subjects, where securing prospective consent would \\\"destroy or invalidate\\\" critically important research; (3) waivers only appeared in the final rulemakings for research regulations issued by the National Institute of Education in 1974 and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1981, limiting the opportunity for the public to weigh in on the scope and use of waivers; and (4) rules adopted since 1981 have almost uniformly added extra requirements to justify waivers. Examples drawn from recent research show expansion of the use of waivers far beyond the bounds originally envisioned. Greater transparency about the use of waivers is needed for the public to weigh in on the standards for foregoing informed consent in human research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01947648.2021.1917464","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

我们研究了在美国允许例外或放弃知情同意研究的政策的演变。这一审查表明:(1)确保知情同意义务的例外最初是相当狭窄的;(2)允许对人体受试者进行未经其事先同意的研究有两种可供选择的方法:(i)对个人同意能力进行评估的例外情况,并根据每个人的能力量身定制同意;(ii)对潜在受试者群体的一般要求的豁免,在这种情况下,获得事先同意将“破坏或无效”至关重要的研究;(3)豁免只出现在1974年国家教育研究所和1981年卫生与公众服务部发布的研究条例的最终规则制定中,限制了公众对豁免的范围和使用进行权衡的机会;(4)自1981年以来采用的规则几乎一致地增加了额外的要求来证明豁免的合理性。从最近的研究中得出的例子表明,豁免的使用范围远远超出了最初设想的范围。为了让公众对人类研究中前述知情同意的标准进行权衡,需要提高豁免使用的透明度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The History and Policy Evolution of Waivers of Informed Consent in Research.

We examine the evolution of policies permitting exceptions to or waivers of informed consent for research in the United States. This review reveals that (1) exceptions to the duty to secure informed consent were originally quite narrow; (2) there were two alternative approaches to allowing research on human subjects without their prospective consent: (i) exceptions in which individual capacity to consent is to be assessed and consent tailored to each person's abilities and (ii) waivers of the general requirement for a population of potential subjects, where securing prospective consent would "destroy or invalidate" critically important research; (3) waivers only appeared in the final rulemakings for research regulations issued by the National Institute of Education in 1974 and the Department of Health and Human Services in 1981, limiting the opportunity for the public to weigh in on the scope and use of waivers; and (4) rules adopted since 1981 have almost uniformly added extra requirements to justify waivers. Examples drawn from recent research show expansion of the use of waivers far beyond the bounds originally envisioned. Greater transparency about the use of waivers is needed for the public to weigh in on the standards for foregoing informed consent in human research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: The Journal of Legal Medicine is the official quarterly publication of the American College of Legal Medicine (ACLM). Incorporated in 1960, the ACLM has among its objectives the fostering and encouragement of research and study in the field of legal medicine. The Journal of Legal Medicine is internationally circulated and includes articles and commentaries on topics of interest in legal medicine, health law and policy, professional liability, hospital law, food and drug law, medical legal research and education, the history of legal medicine, and a broad range of other related topics. Book review essays, featuring leading contributions to the field, are included in each issue.
期刊最新文献
The Problem with Using Medical Boards to Regulate Misinformation 2022-2023 Southern Illinois University National Health Law Moot Court Competition. 2022-2023 Southern Illinois University National Health Law Moot Court Competition: Winning Brief. Fitness to Drive: It is Time for Evidence-Based Consensus and Italian Guidelines for Medical Driving Assessment. Who Decides? State Bans on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors in Tension with Parental Rights and Equal Protection Under the Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1