Ethics of Mental Health Research
-
Upload
raven-simmons -
Category
Documents
-
view
26 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Ethics of Mental Health Research
Ethics of Mental Health Research
Q1: ways in which mental health differs
• Definition of mental illness is problematic. Terminology is very broad and inconsistent
• Diagnosis is difficult and can be a socio- or political- construction
• Awareness of possible cultural factors• Patients are potentially more vulnerable• These factors lead to…
– Greater need for clear inclusion/exclusion criteria– Special attention to assess diagnostic criteria that have been
used?– ..need Psychiatrist on REC or trust Psych investigator?
• Possible lack of awareness of patient of illness and implications of intervention
Q1: discussion - vulnerability
• NB assumption of extra vulnerability – is this function of mental illness, or of loss of capacity. Ie why does mental illness necessarily imply vulnerability where patient has capacity.– Vulnerability arising from representation by a
third party– Vulnerability function of dependency– Vulnerability arising from poor judgement
Q2: Ethical implications for research of lack/loss of capacity
• Research has to be directly relevant to that population and not be possible with patients with capacity, so…
• Special justification needed for studies that are not specifically targetted at the condition leading to incapacity, but…
• Should incapacitated patients be excluded from research that could benefit all sectors of population – eg treatment of heart disease / patients with Downs Syndrome
• This group is different to general population, but take care not to ‘over-protect’
• Lack of capacity should not be assumed in patients with even severe mental illness – capacity can be variable and should be assessed independently of the illness
• Need clear understanding of legal definition of competence and implications for assessing capacity
• How can we be confident that the legal representative can know wishes or represent best interests of the patient?
• Consider issues of confidentiality in respect of legal rep.
Q2: capacity - discussion
• If a court has declared a person incompetent, but we consider that they have capacity for this purpose, can they enter trial?
• REC needs to examine protocols to consider inclusion/exclusion criteria in terms of capacity / competence / representation
• Particular questions about use of placebo?• Questions of conflicts of interest:
– Role of pharmaceutical sponsor, payments– Especially where there may be a dependent
relationship with clinician
Q3: Special precautions where people have diminished capacity
• Important for legal representative to be independent of researcher / sponsor
• REC to examine protocol for how ‘best interests’ will be considered
• Is there a greater need for ongoing inspection / audit / monitoring / scrutiny?
• How to monitor practice of decision-making rather than just the SOP
• What if legal rep consents, but patient is resistant
Q4: Issues in developing / under-resourced countries
• Sponsor of research – what is their role / interest. More vulnerable population – needs extra attention.
• Poor quality of local standard of care in – entry in any trial could be seen as a benefit – ie always in best interests to enter study!
• Attention to risk of inducement in view of poverty• Post-trial position if drugs are successful or addictive• [Not unique to mental health, but issues might be more
sensitive, especially as MH provision is particularly badly served in developing countries]
• Identifying decision-maker(s) and cultural factors in considering individual/family interests
• Competence of local doctors to participate
Q4 : measures to address issues in developing countries
• Capacity (ie resource) to manage issues is limited, so take extra cautionary approach as default, despite potential risk of exclusion from beneficial research?
• Dedicated training modules to mental health research
• Specialised committee for MH research proposals – if possible and workable