|
Informed Consent: The Discussion Continues |
|
|
|
 Vol XIII, Apr `05
- Since we’re putting the burden of ethics and the responsibility for informed consent on researchers, maybe we need to educate researchers.”
- “We need to use the interdisciplinary team as a source of information about whether or not a patient can give consent.”
- “Different levels of interventions require different levels of understanding.”
- “It almost is essential that AMDA or some other appropriate group come up with some kind of generalizeable standard of care. In absence of this, investigators will have to deal with this issue forever; and we will continue to have this discussion again and again.”
- “Consent needs to be study specific. Anything general makes it ‘iffy’ as to what the patient is consenting.”
- I think it would be useful to have a guideline—something we could use as a template.”
- “I don’t think that there is much hope of using the Ombudsman on this issue.”
- “Ability to consent can change from month to month. People who are cognitively intact one month may be impaired the next. We also need to identify proxies for patients with the ability to move people onto and off of the list according to the patient’s wishes. We need to recognize that humans are not necessarily consistent.”
- “It is important that residents and proxies alike not feel pressured in some way to participate in a study.”
- “We need to convince the IRB that what we are doing is the right thing, not just the consistent thing.”
- “There has to be a way to allow for exceptions in assent when they make sense.”
|
Vol XIII, Apr `05