Search

Background: Euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS) of psychiatric patients is legal in some countries but remains controversial., Objective: This study examined a frequently raised concern about the practice: how physicians address the issue of decision-making capacity of persons requesting psychiatric EAS., Methods: A review of psychiatric EAS case summaries published by the Dutch Regional Euthanasia Review Committees. Directed content analysis using a capacity-specific 4 abilities model (understanding of facts, applying those facts to self, weighing/reasoning, and evidencing choice) was used to code texts discussing capacity. A total of 66 cases from 2011-2014 were reviewed., Results: In 55% (36 of 66) of cases, the capacity-specific discussion consisted of only global judgments of patients' capacity, even in patients with psychotic disorders. Further, 32% (21 of 66) of cases included evidentiary statements regarding capacity-specific abilities; only 5 cases (8%) mentioned all 4 abilities. Physicians frequently stated that psychosis or depression did or did not affect capacity but provided little explanation regarding their judgments. Physicians in 8 cases (12%) disagreed about capacity; even when no explanation was given for the disagreement, the review committees generally accepted the judgment of the physician performing EAS. In one case, the physicians noted that not all capacity-specific abilities were intact but deemed the patient capable., Conclusion: Case summaries of psychiatric EAS in the Netherlands do not show that a high threshold of capacity is required for granting EAS. Although this may reflect limitations in documentation, it likely represents a practice that reflects the normative position of the review committees., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is among the most significant health care burdens. Disappointing results from clinical trials in late-stage AD persons combined with hopeful results from trials in persons with early-stage suggest that research in the preclinical stage of AD is necessary to define an optimal therapeutic success window. We review the justification for conducting trials in the preclinical stage and highlight novel ethical challenges that arise and are related to determining appropriate risk-benefit ratios and disclosing individuals' biomarker status. We propose that to conduct clinical trials with these participants, we need to improve public understanding of AD using unified vocabulary, resolve the acceptable risk-benefit ratio in asymptomatic participants, and disclose or not biomarker status with attention to study type (observational studies vs clinical trials). Overcoming these challenges will justify clinical trials in preclinical AD at the societal level and aid to the development of societal and legal support for trial participants., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Euthanasia or assisted suicide (EAS) of psychiatric patients is increasing in some jurisdictions such as Belgium and the Netherlands. However, little is known about the practice, and it remains controversial., Objectives: To describe the characteristics of patients receiving EAS for psychiatric conditions and how the practice is regulated in the Netherlands., Design, Setting, and Participants: This investigation reviewed psychiatric EAS case summaries made available online by the Dutch regional euthanasia review committees as of June 1, 2015. Two senior psychiatrists used directed content analysis to review and code the reports. In total, 66 cases from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed., Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical and social characteristics of patients, physician review process of the patients' requests, and the euthanasia review committees' assessments of the physicians' actions., Results: Of the 66 cases reviewed, 70% (n = 46) were women. In total, 32% (n = 21) were 70 years or older, 44% (n = 29) were 50 to 70 years old, and 24% (n = 16) were 30 to 50 years old. Most had chronic, severe conditions, with histories of attempted suicides and psychiatric hospitalizations. Most had personality disorders and were described as socially isolated or lonely. Depressive disorders were the primary psychiatric issue in 55% (n = 36) of cases. Other conditions represented were psychotic, posttraumatic stress or anxiety, somatoform, neurocognitive, and eating disorders, as well as prolonged grief and autism. Comorbidities with functional impairments were common. Forty-one percent (n = 27) of physicians performing EAS were psychiatrists. Twenty-seven percent (n = 18) of patients received the procedure from physicians new to them, 14 of whom were physicians from the End-of-Life Clinic, a mobile euthanasia clinic. Consultation with other physicians was extensive, but 11% (n = 7) of cases had no independent psychiatric input, and 24% (n = 16) of cases involved disagreement among consultants. The euthanasia review committees found that one case failed to meet legal due care criteria., Conclusions and Relevance: Persons receiving EAS for psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands are mostly women and of diverse ages, with complex and chronic psychiatric, medical, and psychosocial histories. The granting of their EAS requests appears to involve considerable physician judgment, usually involving multiple physicians who do not always agree (sometimes without independent psychiatric input), but the euthanasia review committees generally defer to the judgments of the physicians performing the EAS.

Barriers to informed consent are ubiquitous in the conduct of emergency care research across a wide range of conditions and clinical contexts. They are largely unavoidable; can be related to time constraints, physical symptoms, emotional stress, and cognitive impairment; and affect patients and surrogates. US regulations permit an exception from informed consent for certain clinical trials in emergency settings, but these regulations have generally been used to facilitate trials in which patients are unconscious and no surrogate is available. Most emergency care research, however, involves conscious patients, and surrogates are often available. Unfortunately, there is neither clear regulatory guidance nor established ethical standards in regard to consent in these settings. In this report-the result of a workshop convened by the National Institutes of Health Office of Emergency Care Research and Department of Bioethics to address ethical challenges in emergency care research-we clarify potential gaps in ethical understanding and federal regulations about research in emergency care in which limited involvement of patients or surrogates in enrollment decisions is possible. We propose a spectrum of approaches directed toward realistic ethical goals and a research and policy agenda for addressing these issues to facilitate clinical research necessary to improve emergency care., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Donors to biobanks are typically asked to give blanket consent, allowing their donation to be used in any research authorized by the biobank. This type of consent ignores the evidence that some donors have moral, religious, or cultural concerns about the future uses of their donations - concerns we call "non-welfare interests". The nature of non-welfare interests and their effect on willingness to donate to a biobank is not well understood.In order to better undersand the influence of non-welfare interests, we surveyed a national sample of the US population (in June 2014) using a probability-based internet panel. Logistic regression models assessed the demographic and attitudinal characteristics associated with participants' willingness to give consent for unspecified future uses of their donation when presented with 7 research scenarios that raised possible non-welfare interest concerns. Most people had non-welfare interests that significantly affect their willingness to donate to a biobank using blanket consent. Some non-welfare interests are associated with subgroups but others are not. A positive attitude toward biomedical research in general was associated with increased willingness to donate, while concerns about privacy and being African American were associated with decreased willingness.Non-welfare interests matter and can diminish willingness to donate to a biobank. Our data suggest that trust in research promotes willingness to donate. Ignoring non-welfare interests could erode this trust. Donors' non-welfare interests could be accommodated through greater transparency and easier access to information about the uses of donations.

Background: Desire for improvement in one's illness and having one's own doctor functioning as a researcher are thought to promote therapeutic misconception (TM), a phenomenon in which research subjects are said to conflate research with treatment., Purpose: To examine whether subjects' therapeutic motivation and own doctor functioning as researcher are associated with TM., Methods: We interviewed 90 persons with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) enrolled or intending to enrol in sham surgery controlled neurosurgical trials, using qualitative interviews. Subjects were compared by motivation (primarily therapeutic vs primarily altruistic or dually motivated by altruistic and therapeutic motivation), and by doctor status (own doctor as site investigator vs not) on the following: understanding of purpose of study; understanding of research procedures; perception of chance of direct benefit; and recollection and perceptions concerning the risks., Results: 60% had primarily therapeutic motivation and 44% had their own doctor as the site investigator, but neither were generally associated with increased TM responses. Overall level of understanding of purpose and procedures of research were high. Subjects responded with generally high estimates of probability of direct benefit, but their rationales were personal and complex. The therapeutic-motivation group was more sensitive to risks. Five (5.6%) subjects provided incorrect answers to the question about purpose of research, and yet, showed excellent understanding of research procedures., Conclusions: In persons with PD involved in sham surgery clinical trials, being primarily motivated by desire for direct benefit to one's illness or having one's own doctor as the site investigator were not associated with greater TM responses., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The ethical debate surrounding biobanks has focused on protecting donors' welfare and privacy. However, little attention has been given to the ethical significance of donor interests that go beyond privacy and welfare (non-welfare interests [NWIs]), such as their concerns about the moral or religious implications of researchers using their donated samples. Using an experimental survey design with 1,276 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we studied the potential impact of eight NWI scenarios on people's attitudes toward research studies being performed on samples donated to biobanks by assessing willingness to donate, attitudes toward disclosure of NWIs, impact of timing and format of disclosure (number of NWIs disclosed on a page), and participant factors associated with willingness to donate. Baseline willingness to donate to biobanks prior to any mention of NWIs was comparable with previous studies, at 85% to 89%. Most participants wanted NWI disclosures prior to donation to biobanks, but far fewer favored specific consent. Overall pattern of responses showed that as participants receive more information about NWIs, willingness to donate decreases in a scenario dependent manner. Specifically, NWI concerns about profit seeking research and insurance risk assessment had the strongest impact, even greater than controversial issues such as reproductive research, regardless of political, religious, and most other characteristics of respondents. Based on the results, a schema of NWI types is proposed that could be used for further research and policy discussions., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Background: In Canada and elsewhere, research policies require researchers to secure consent from a legally authorized representative (LAR) for prospective participants unable to consent. Few jurisdictions, however, offer a clear legislative basis for LAR identification. We investigated Canadian researchers' practices regarding the involvement of decisionally incapacitated participants and tested whether reported practices were associated with (1) researchers' understanding of the law on third-party authorization of research and (2) their comfort with allowing a family member to consent on behalf of an incapacitated relative., Methods: We surveyed researchers in aging from four Canadian provinces about their practices with prospective participants deemed incapable of consent, their understanding of relevant law, and comfort with family consent for research purposes. Understanding and comfort were measured with research vignettes that briefly described hypothetical studies in which an adult who lacks the capacity to consent was invited to participate., Results: Many respondents reported soliciting consent from a family member (45.7% for low-risk studies and 10.7% for serious risks studies), even in jurisdictions where such authority is uncertain at law. Researchers' tendency to solicit family consent was associated with their comfort in doing so, but not with their understanding of the law on substitute consent for research., Conclusions: Findings underscore the need to clarify who may authorize an incapacitated adult's participation in research. Meanwhile, people should inform their relatives of their desire to participate or not in research in the event of incapacity, given researchers' tendency to turn to family for consent, even where not supported by law.

Background: Decision-making capacity (DMC) assessments can have profound consequences for patients. With an aging population, an increasing emphasis on shared decision-making, and a rising number of potential medical interventions, the need for such assessments will continue to grow., Objective: To assess psychosomatic medicine clinicians' training, experiences, and views about DMC assessments., Method: Online survey of members of the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine (APM). Of 780 eligible members, 288 responded to the survey (36.9% response rate)., Results: Approximately 1 in 6 psychiatric consultations are DMC assessments. Ninety percent of respondents reported that at least half of their capacity assessments involve patients older than 60 years. DMC assessments were seen as more challenging and time-consuming than other types of consultations; yet training in capacity evaluations was seen as suboptimal and half of respondents felt the evidence-base guiding DMC assessment is somewhat or much weaker than for other types of psychiatric consultations. In addition, the practice of capacity assessment seems to vary widely with no consistent approach among respondents. Respondents strongly endorsed multiple areas and topics for potential future research, indicating a desire for a stronger evidence-base., Conclusions: Members of the APM perceive capacity assessments as common and challenging. Yet they perceive having received subpar training with relatively weak evidence to guide their current practice. Future research should address these potential deficiencies, given the likelihood that DMC assessments will only become more common., (Copyright © 2013 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Sham surgery controls are increasingly used in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remain controversial. We interviewed participants of such trials, specifically examining their understanding and attitudes regarding sham surgery., Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with participants of 3 sham surgery-controlled trials for PD, focusing on their understanding of sham design, their reactions to it, its impact on decision making, and their understanding of posttrial availability of the experimental intervention and its impact on decisions to participate., Results: All subjects (n = 90) understood the 2-arm design; most (86%) described the procedural differences between the arms accurately. Ninety-two percent referred to scientific or regulatory reasons as rationales for the sham control, with 62% specifically referring to the placebo effect. Ninety-one percent said posttrial availability of the experimental intervention had a strong (48%) or some (43%) influence on their decision to participate, but only 68% understood the conditions for posttrial availability., Conclusions: Most subjects in sham surgery-controlled PD trials comprehend the sham surgery design and its rationale. Although there is room for improvement, most subjects of sham surgery trials appear to be adequately informed., (Copyright © 2012 Movement Disorder Society.)

Concerns have been raised that persons with serious illnesses participating in high-risk research, such as PD patients in sham surgery trials, have unrealistic expectations and are vulnerable to exploitation. A comparison of enrollees and decliners of such research may provide insights about the adequacy of decision making by potential subjects. We compared 61 enrollees and 10 decliners of two phase II neurosurgical intervention (i.e., cellular and gene transfer) trials for PD regarding their demographic and clinical status, perceptions and attitudes regarding research risks, potential direct benefit, and societal benefit, and perspectives on the various potential reasons for and against participation. In addition to bivariate analyses, a logistic regression model examined variables regarding risks and benefits as predictors of participation status. Enrollees perceived lower risk of harm while tolerating higher risk of harm and were more action oriented, but did not have more advanced disease. Both groups rated hope for benefit as a strong reason to participate, whereas the fact that the study's purpose was not solely to benefit them was rated as "not a reason" against participation. Hope for benefit and altruism were rated higher than expectation of benefit as reasons in favor of participation for both groups. Enrollees and decliners are different in their views and attitudes toward risk. Although both are attracted to research because of hopes of personal benefit, this hope is clearly distinguishable from an expectation of benefit and does not imply a failure to understand the main purpose of research., (Copyright © 2012 Movement Disorder Society.)

The goal of democratic deliberation (DD) bioethics research is to elicit informed and considered opinions on ethically controversial issues. But the trustworthiness of DD outcomes depends on the quality of deliberations. We provide a framework to evaluate the quality of deliberations and apply that framework to a DD project on surrogate consent for dementia research involving randomly selected samples of the older general public. Using a mixed method approach, we found that participants were very satisfied with the sessions, learned and used new information, were respectful and collaborative, and were able to "reason together" to arrive at societal policy recommendations. Implications and limitations of the paper are also discussed.

Background: Assessment of decision-making capacity is a common and important function of psychiatric consultants. However, the sources of variability in evaluators' judgments have not been well characterized., Objective: To examine the degree and potential sources of variability in the categorical capacity judgments of experienced psychiatrists., Method: The setting was a study comparing the decision-making capacities of 188 persons with Alzheimer's disease to appoint a research proxy and to consent to two hypothetical randomized controlled trials for dementia (a new drug RCT and a neurosurgical RCT). We compared five experienced consultation psychiatrists' capacity judgments for 555 videotaped capacity interviews. Both quantitative and qualitative data were used., Results: Pair wise kappa statistics ranged from slight agreement (0.17) to substantial agreement (0.64) with group kappa statistics ranging from fair to moderate agreement (0.40 to 0.45) for the psychiatrists' judgments regarding the three capacities. The sources of variability included varying "strictness" among judges, moderate test-retest reliability within judges, the relative novelty of assessing decision-making capacity for research participation decisions, as well as the limitations of the methods used to obtain capacity judgments in the study., Discussion: There is considerable variability in capacity judgments of experienced consultation psychiatrists regarding the capacities to appoint a research proxy and to consent to research. The potential sources of variability identified in this study may provide starting points for more effective training in capacity assessment., (Copyright © 2011 The Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With increasing numbers of studies on research ethics and a need to improve the recruitment of research subjects, the ability to measure attitudes toward biomedical research has become important. The Research Attitudes Questionnaire is a significant predictor of the public's attitudes toward and willingness to participate in research, yet limited data are available on its psychometric properties. This study establishes the scale's internal consistency and dimensionality using a large Internet-based sample from the United States. One item was removed due to a poor item-total correlation, and three additional items were removed which formed a reverse-wording measurement artifact factor. With improved internal consistency and dimensionality, the seven-item version has the advantages of shorter administration time and improved psychometric properties.

The obligations of researchers to disclose clinically and/or personally significant individual research results are highly debated, but few empirical studies have addressed this topic. We describe the development of a protocol for returning research results to participants at one site of a multicenter study of the genetic epidemiology of melanoma. Protocol development involved numerous challenges: (1) deciding whether genotype results merited disclosure; (2) achieving an appropriate format for communicating results; (3) developing education materials; (4) deciding whether to retest samples for additional laboratory validation; (5) identifying and notifying selected participants; and (6) assessing the impact of disclosure. Our experience suggests potential obstacles depending on researcher resources and the design of the parent study, but offers a process by which researchers can responsibly return individual study results and evaluate the impact of disclosure.

Background: Research involving incapacitated persons with dementia entails complex scientific, legal, and ethical issues, making traditional surveys of layperson views on the ethics of such research challenging. We therefore assessed the impact of democratic deliberation (DD), involving balanced, detailed education and peer deliberation, on the views of those responsible for persons with dementia., Methods: One hundred and seventy-eight community-recruited caregivers or primary decision-makers for persons with dementia were randomly assigned to either an all-day DD session group or a control group. Educational materials used for the DD session were vetted for balance and accuracy by an interdisciplinary advisory panel. We assessed the acceptability of family-surrogate consent for dementia research ("surrogate-based research") from a societal policy perspective as well as from the more personal perspectives of deciding for a loved one or for oneself (surrogate and self-perspectives), assessed at baseline, immediately post-DD session, and 1 month after DD date, for four research scenarios of varying risk-benefit profiles., Results: At baseline, a majority in both the DD and control groups supported a policy of family consent for dementia research in all research scenarios. The support for a policy of family consent for surrogate-based research increased in the DD group, but not in the control group. The change in the DD group was maintained 1 month later. In the DD group, there were transient changes in attitudes from surrogate or self-perspectives. In the control group, there were no changes from baseline in attitude toward surrogate consent from any perspective., Conclusions: Intensive, balanced, and accurate education, along with peer deliberation provided by democratic deliberation, led to a sustained increase in support for a societal policy of family consent in dementia research among those responsible for dementia patients., (Copyright 2010 The Alzheimer)

Context: Little is known about research participants' understanding of consent information over the course of a clinical study and the relationship of this information with participant behavior., Methods: We conducted a cross sectional patient completed questionnaire of comprehension and satisfaction administered at the end of a Parkinson's disease clinical trial., Main Outcome: Scores on 9 comprehension items in a 30 item questionnaire covering the key elements of informed consent., Results: 78% of eligible trial participants completed this substudy. Greater than 90% of respondents showed good comprehension of the study purpose, method of treatment assignment, experimental nature of drugs, voluntary participation, and expected effect of the trial on their PD. However, 42.3% of subjects incorrectly endorsed that participating in the study was part of the "usual treatment" for their PD. We found no relationship between comprehension, compliance, and satisfaction with whether or not one's own neurologist was also the study doctor. Years of education and cognitive function at baseline were correlated with comprehension of study information., Conclusions: Overall comprehension of key study information presented in the consent was high after 12 months of trial participation, although there were inconsistencies in responses that need further study.

In a liberal democracy, policy decisions regarding ethical controversies, including those in research ethics, should incorporate the opinions of its citizens. Eliciting informed and well-considered ethical opinions can be challenging. The issues may not be widely familiar and they may involve complex scientific, legal, historical, and ethical dimensions. Traditional surveys risk eliciting superficial and uninformed opinions that may be of dubious quality for policy formation. We argue that the theory and practice of deliberative democracy (DD) is especially useful in overcoming such inadequacies. We explain DD theory and practice, discuss the rationale for using DD methods in research ethics, and illustrate in depth the use of a DD method for a longstanding research ethics controversy involving research based on surrogate consent. The potential pitfalls of DD and the means of minimizing them as well as future research directions are also discussed.

Bioethicists have long been concerned that seriously ill patients entering early phase ('phase I') treatment trials are motivated by therapeutic benefit even though the likelihood of benefit is low. In spite of these concerns, consent forms for phase I studies involving seriously ill patients generally employ indeterminate benefit statements rather than unambiguous statements of unlikely benefit. This seeming mismatch between attitudes and actions suggests a need to better understand research ethics committee members' attitudes toward communication of potential benefits and risks of early phase studies to potential subjects. We surveyed the members of two U.S. research ethics committees using a phase I gene transfer study scenario, and compared the results to a previous survey of potential subjects' perceptions and attitudes toward benefit and risk for the same protocol. The results show that there is indeed a gap between the subjects' perceptions and the committee members' views on what is appropriate to be communicated to research subjects. This discrepancy is the product of both the commonly assumed optimism of the subjects and to a "protective pessimism" of the research ethics committee members. We discuss this discrepancy using "frameworks of trust" and demonstrate the need to incorporate these frameworks into the existing model of informed consent.

Sham surgery is used as a control condition in neurosurgical clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) but remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the perspective of patients with PD and the general public on the use of sham surgery controls. We surveyed consecutive patients from a university-based neurology outpatient clinic and a community-based general internal medicine practice. Background information was provided regarding PD and two possible methods of testing the efficacy of a novel gene transfer procedure, followed by questions that addressed participants' opinions related to the willingness to participate and permissibility of blinded and unblinded trial designs. Two hundred eighty-eight (57.6%) patients returned surveys. Patients with PD expressed less willingness to participate in the proposed gene transfer surgery trials. Unblinded studies received greater support, but a majority would still allow the use of sham surgery. Those in favor of sham surgery were more educated and more likely to use societal perspective rationales. Patients with PD are more cautious about surgical research participation than patients with non-PD. Their policy views were similar to others', with a majority supporting the use of sham controls. Future research needs to determine whether eliciting more considered judgments of laypersons would reveal different levels of support for sham surgery., (2007 Movement Disorder Society)

The two most important ethical requirements for clinical studies of gene transfer are to ensure that: (i) a protocol's risks are minimized and acceptable in light of the potential benefit to society and to research participants; and that (ii) a valid, informed consent process takes place. The history of gene transfer studies in humans shows that the probability of harm or benefit to participating individuals is extremely low. However, because the risks and benefits of gene transfer remain unpredictable, and because increasing the potential for benefits to individuals is likely to be accompanied by increases in potential for adverse events, close monitoring of human gene transfer research will continue. Recent research on informed consent for phase I studies of serious illnesses has revealed an evolving discussion on the proper standards for disclosure; one important conclusion is that disclosures regarding potential benefits to individuals need to be less ambiguous than they currently are.

The authors asked whether clinicians use a risk-sensitive model for decisional-capacity determinations; that is, whether a higher degree of capacity was required in higher-risk situations. The respondents were randomly assigned to view a videotaped "capacity" interview of a medication-randomized clinical trial scenario (N=52) or a neurosurgical clinical trial scenario (N=47). A significant scenario effect was mediated by the respondents' perception of scenario-specific risk. Respondents showed considerable disagreement within each scenario that was not explained by clinician-specific factors. Thus, clinicians, in fact, use the normative risk-sensitive model for capacity, but there remains considerable unexplained variability in their judgments.

Background: Research involving decisionally incapable adults remains an unsettled and controversial policy issue, especially for protocols that involve significant risk to participants. Few data exist to guide policymakers and IRBs, Objective: Survey the views of persons at heightened risk for dementia regarding the acceptability of surrogate consent for biomedical research of varying levels of risks and potential benefits., Methods: Using a mail survey, the authors surveyed the participants at one of the sites of the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial (all participants are 70 years old or older with at least one first-degree relative with dementia) and measured responses regarding the acceptability of surrogate consent for 10 research scenarios of varying degrees of risks and benefits (ranging from an observation study to a gene transfer protocol), given from the perspectives of social policy, personal preferences for self, and preferences when deciding on behalf of a loved one., Results: Two hundred twenty-nine of 259 eligible participants responded (88%). A large majority (>90%) found minimal risk studies as well as randomized clinical trials of new medications acceptable for surrogate consent. A smaller majority found the more invasive studies acceptable. Participants were more cautious when deciding for a loved one. General attitude toward biomedical research and scenario-specific risk perception were strong independent predictors. Demographic and personal history variables had relatively little effect., Conclusions: Laypersons at heightened risk of Alzheimer disease discriminate among research scenarios of varying risks and burdens. They are supportive of surrogate consent-based research even when the risks and burdens are significant to the subjects; these opinions appear to be based in part on their assessment of risks as well as on their general attitude toward biomedical research.

Placebo, or sham surgery, as a control condition in surgical clinical trials in Parkinson disease (PD) remains controversial. The authors reviewed the adverse effects reported in double blind, placebo surgery controlled trials for PD. Placebo surgeries were generally safe and well tolerated but the number of subjects receiving the procedure was small. Harm occurred more frequently in subjects randomized to the experimental intervention.

Objective: The ethics of involving decisionally incapable adults in research will continue to grow in importance as more research is conducted to address the problems of decisionally impaired persons, especially elderly persons. The authors provide an updated discussion, critique, and recommendations regarding the need for clear legal and regulatory policy on this issue., Method: The authors summarize and build on discussions of a workshop on proxy and surrogate consent in geriatric neuropsychiatric research sponsored by the Aging Research Consortium of the National Institute of Mental Health. They incorporate the views of various stakeholders present at the workshop as well as review recent federal and state initiatives, recent empirical research and media reports, and various commission reports and relevant regulations., Results: Despite a wave of initiatives in the late 1990s to clarify policy, surrogate consent for research continues to be a murky legal area and incapable subjects in the United States still lack clear regulatory protection. There is evidence that conservative risk management strategies by institutional review boards and their institutions may severely restrict research with decisionally impaired subjects. A passive approach to this problem may no longer be feasible. A recent federal advisory report on human research protections and legislative initiatives in some states could begin to provide a blueprint for future policy making. Interim recommendations for various stakeholders are given., Conclusions: It is imperative that the scientific community, patients and their advocates, and policy makers at all levels establish a constructive dialogue to clarify ethical and legal standards in the area of proxy and surrogate consent for research.

Objective: The use of placebos is a necessary, if controversial, part of determining the efficacy of new antidepressants in randomized clinical trials. Such studies need to convey accurate and useful risk-benefit information to subjects since effective treatments are withheld. The authors assessed the cost-effectiveness of entering such a trial from the perspective of potential subjects., Method: The choice between individualized psychiatric treatment and an 8-week placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was modeled by using a static model. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of a potential subject who has moderate depression, is at low risk for suicide, has no comorbid conditions, and lacks adequate insurance to pay for mental health services. The trial was assumed to be free for subjects, except for indirect costs. Model outcomes included the probability of treatment response at 8 weeks and "decremental" cost-effectiveness. Data were based on reviews of published and some unpublished clinical trials of novel antidepressants that were eventually shown to be efficacious., Results: A participant in a typical antidepressant efficacy trial has a chance of treatment response almost 25% less than that with individualized treatment. An uninsured participant can expect to save just over $164 for every 10% chance of response sacrificed by entering the placebo-controlled trial., Conclusions: For placebo-controlled antidepressant trials, it is possible to derive systematic and evidence-based estimates of the burdens and potential benefits to subjects. Such information may be more useful for institutional review boards and potential subjects than an unstructured enumeration of risks and benefits.

Objective: Ethical concerns persist over research participation of decisionally impaired persons, such as those suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Such persons may be poor judges of the burdens and risks of specific research protocols. Since even decisionally incapacitated persons cannot be enrolled in studies against their objection, their preferences convey important ethical information. The authors examined the effects of cognitive and decisional impairment on willingness to participate in research among persons with Alzheimer's disease., Method: Cognitive status, decision-making ability, and willingness to participate in four hypothetical research protocols of varying risk/benefit profiles were measured in 34 subjects with mild to mild/moderate Alzheimer's disease and 14 healthy elderly comparison subjects. Univariate and multivariate methods were used to analyze the effects of impairment in cognitive and decision-making abilities on willingness to participate in research., Results: There were no differences in willingness to participate found between the Alzheimer's and the healthy comparison subjects for three of the four hypothetical protocols. In both groups, willingness declined as risk increased. Within the Alzheimer's disease group, the presence of greater decisional impairment tended to predict less willingness to participate in research, even after adjusting for cognitive impairment, gender, and education., Conclusions: Persons with decisional impairment due to Alzheimer's disease are as a group able to distinguish between research protocols of varying risk/benefit profiles. Because declining decision-making abilities may predict declining willingness to participate in research, informed consent procedures for Alzheimer's disease research should be sensitive to this possibility.

As the number of cognitively impaired elderly persons increases, the need for evidence-based assessments of their capacity to consent to medical treatment and research participation will grow. The authors conducted an electronic and manual literature search for all English-language articles examining the decision-making capacity of elderly persons with dementia or cognitive impairment, reviewing articles in relation to key areas of methodological, clinical, and policy importance. The 32 relevant studies identified were highly heterogeneous, even in their definitions and measurements of decisional capacity. Although incapacity is common, many persons with dementia are capable of making their own medical and research decisions. In Alzheimer disease, memory and executive-function deficits predict decisional impairment. Still, at least in early stages of dementia, interventions may improve decisional abilities. Short and simple cognitive screening may be useful by identifying persons in need of more intensive evaluations. The use of expert judgment-based methods may mitigate the problem of a lack of a criterion standard for competence. Research into the decision-making competence of cognitively impaired elderly persons is a growing field. It is beginning to yield findings with practical implications for preserving the autonomy and welfare of this group of vulnerable elderly patients.