Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T21:27:21.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enrolling Decisionally Incapacitated Subjects in Neuropsychiatric Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Joseph J. Fins  and
Franklin G. Miller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses the National Bioethics Advisory Commissions (NBAC's) report on research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity. After placing the NBAC recommendations into their historic context, the authors propose a strategy to enroll decisionally incapacitated subjects into neuropsychiatric research. The authors maintained that their proposed consensus model for research authorization, utilizing subject advocates, fosters valuable clinical research while protecting potentially vulnerable subjects.

Type
Feature Articles
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 5 , Issue 10: Neurosurgical Approaches and Deep Brain Implants in Neuropsychiatric Illness: Part One , October 2000 , pp. 32 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Vol 1. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; December 1998.Google Scholar
2.Miller, FG, Fins, JJ. Protecting vulnerable research subjects without unduly constraining neuropsychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:701–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Beecher, H. Ethics and Clinical Research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:1354–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. DHEW Pub. No. (OS) 78-0012. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1978.Google Scholar
5.Faden, RR, ed. United States Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. The Human Radiation Experiments: The Final Report of the President's Advisory Committee. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
6.National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Research Involving Those Institutionalized as Mentally Infirm: Report and Recommendations. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1978.Google Scholar
7.National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Vol 1. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; December 1998:ii.Google Scholar
8.Fins, JJ. A proposed ethical framework for interventional cognitive neuroscience: a consideration of deep brain stimulation in impaired consciousness. Neurol Res. 2000;22:273–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Schiff, ND, Rezai, A, and Plum, F. A neuromodulation strategy for rational therapy of complex brain injury. Neurol Res. 2000;22:267–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Schiff, ND, Plum, F. The neurology of impaired consciousness: global disorders and implied models [target article at forum]. Association for Scientific Study of Consciousness; 1999: http://athena.english.vt.edu/cgibin/netforum/nic/a/1.Google Scholar
11.Michels, R. Are research ethics bad for our mental health? N Engl J Med. 1999;340(18):1427–1430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Oldham, JM, Haimowitz, S, and Delano, S. Protection of persons with mental disorders from research risk. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:688–693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Miller, FG, Rosenstein, DL. Independent capacity assessment: a critique. BioLaw. 1999;11:S432–S439.Google Scholar
14.Miller, FG, Rosenstein, DL. Psychiatric symptom-provoking studies: an ethical appraisal. Biol Psychiatry. 1997;42:403–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Miller, FG. Placebo-controlled trials in psychiatric research: an ethical perspective. Biol Psychiatry. 1999;47:707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Vol 1. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; December 1998:62.Google Scholar
17.Code of Federal Regulations 45CFR46. Subpart, D. Additional DHHS Protections for Children Involved as Subjects in Research. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; June 18, 1991.Google Scholar
18.Lipsett, MB. On the nature and ethics of phase I clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies. JAMA. 1982;248:941–942.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Miller, FG, Rosenstein, DL. Protocol review within the context of a research program. IRB. 1998;20(4):7–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Applebaum, PS, Roth, LH, Lidz, Cw, et al.False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17:20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Miller, FG, Rosenstein, DL, DeRenzo, EG. Professional integrity in clinical research. JAMA. 1998;280:1449–1454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Teno, J, Lynn, J, Wenger, N, et al.Advance directives for seriously ill hospitalized patients: effectiveness with the patient self-determination act and the SUPPORT intervention. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(4):500–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Cook-Deegan, RM. Protecting the vulnerable in brain research. Cerebrum. 2000;2(2):73–91.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Muncie, HL, Magaziner, J, Hebel, JR, et al.Proxies' decisions about clinical research participation for their charges. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:929–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Sundram, CJ. Informed consent for major medical treatment of mentally disabled people. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1368–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. NY Mental Hygeine Law, Art 80.Google Scholar
27.New York State Commission on Quality Care. Obtaining medical treatment: Surrogate Consent. http://www.cqc.ny.us/sdmc.htm.Google Scholar
28.Herr, SS and Hopkins, BL. Health care decision making for persons with disabilities. JAMA. 1994;271(13):1017–1022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Miller, TE, Coleman, CH, Cugliari, AM. Treatment decisions for patients without surrogates: rethinking policies for a vulnerable population. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:369–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Levine, C. The loneliness of the long-term care giver. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(20):1587–1590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Winslade, WJ. Confronting Traumatic Brain Injury: Devastation, Hope and Healing. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1998.Google Scholar
32.Osborn, CL. Over My Head. Kansas City: Andrews McNeal Publishing; 1998.Google Scholar
33.Phipps, EJ, Di Pasquale, M, Blitz, CL, et al.Interpreting responsiveness in persons with severe traumatic brain injury: Beliefs in families and quantitative evaluations. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1997;12(4):52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Vol 1. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; December 1998:37.Google Scholar
35.Adshead, G. Informed consent and psychiatric research. Annali dell'Instituto Superiore di Sanita. 1997;33:497–503.Google ScholarPubMed
36.National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Research Involving Persons With Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Vol 1. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission; December 1998:53.Google Scholar