Suchergebnisse

This second edition of Beyond Consent adds new content in two different ways, first by asking authors to examine the issues identified in the first edition taking into account what new issues arise in the contemporary environment, and second by adding chapters to take on issues that are salient today and looking forward

ABSTRACTThe near‐routine exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research has resulted in evidence gaps that endanger the health of pregnant women and their future offspring. Although existing literature documents numerous obstacles along the clinical trial pathway that can stymie research involving pregnant women, there is little guidance on how to facilitate such research. This qualitative study aims to fill that void by examining the experiences of individuals involved in conducting, approving, or overseeing research involving pregnant women at one academic institution. The study identifies factors throughout the clinical pathway—from protocol development, to IRB review, and ultimately trial execution—that likely contribute to the successful conduct of research with pregnant women. Attention to those factors, coupled with agreement among stakeholders that research with pregnant women should and can be done ethically and legally, is critical to shifting the narrative from "why we cannot" do such research to "how we can."

Natural disasters and cholera outbreaks. Ebola, SARS, and concerns over pandemic flu. HIV and AIDS. E. coli outbreaks from contaminated produce and fast foods. Threats of bioterrorism. Contamination of compounded drugs. Vaccination refusals and outbreaks of preventable diseases. These are just some of the headlines from the last 30-plus years highlighting the essential roles and responsibilities of public health, all of which come with ethical issues and the responsibilities they create. Public health has achieved extraordinary successes. And yet these successes also bring with them ethical tension. Not all public health successes are equally distributed in the population; extraordinary health disparities between rich and poor still exist. The most successful public health programs sometimes rely on policies that, while improving public health conditions, also limit individual rights. Public health practitioners and policymakers face these and other questions of ethics routinely in their work, and they must navigate their sometimes competing responsibilities to the health of the public with other important societal values such as privacy, autonomy, and prevailing cultural norms.--From publisher

ABSTRACTIn the early days of a pandemic, repurposing biospecimens from established research projects could prove to be extraordinarily useful in achieving substantial and timely public health benefits. Nonetheless, there are potential ethical and regulatory uncertainties that may impede access to those valuable biospecimens. In this article, we argue that there should be a presumption in favor of using previously collected identifiable research biospecimens without reconsent to directly address an infectious disease pandemic, assuming certain conditions are met. This argument fills a unique yet critical gap in decision‐making where the specific consent accompanying the identifiable biospecimens would not otherwise permit repurposing. Further, it suggests that even if gaining reconsent is feasible, doing so in a fast‐moving crisis is not necessary. This analysis also attempts to address the ethical concerns of public health authorities who already may have the power to use such specimens but are reluctant to do so.