The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the analytical (theoretical/philosophical) research.
Conducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet, approaching the parents of these infants at such a difficult time raises challenges to obtaining valid informed consent for such research. In this study, we asked, What light does the analytical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to obtaining informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?



In a systematic search, we identified 30 studies. We began our analysis by applying philosophical frameworks, which were then refined as concepts emerged from the analytical studies, to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.



Between them, the studies addressed four themes. The first three were the ethical basis for parental informed consent for neonatal and/or perinatal research, the validity of parental consent in this context, and the range of possible options in methods for gaining consent. The last was the issue of risk and the possibility of a double-standard or asymmetry in the current approaches to the requirement for consent for research and consent for clinical treatment.



In addressing these issues, the analysed studies showed that, whilst there are a variety of possible defences for seeking parental 'consent' to neonatal and/or perinatal clinical trials, these are all consistent with the strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give (or decline) consent for such research. So far as the method of obtaining consent is concerned, none of the existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory, and there are philosophical reasons for supposing that at least some parents will fail to give valid consent in a neonatal context. Furthermore, in giving parental 'consent' in a perinatal context, parents are authorising infant participation, not giving 'proxy consent'. Finally, there are reasons for giving weight to both parental 'consent' and the infant's best interests in both research and clinical treatment. However, there are also reasons to treat these factors differently in the two contexts, and this may be partly due to the differing relevance of risk in each case. A significant gap is the lack of any detailed discussion of a process of emergency and/or urgent 'assent', in which parents assent or refuse their baby's participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to continuing participation and follow-up.
Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. c.b.megone@leeds.ac.uk.
Christopher
0000-0002-4598-1055
C
Megone
Inter-Disciplinary Ethics Applied, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Eleanor
E
Wilman
Public Policy, Social Science Research Unit, EPPI-Centre, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK.
Sandy
S
Oliver
Clinical Trials Research, Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, Nottingham Health Science Partners, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Lelia
L
Duley
National Childbirth Trust, London, UK.
Gill
G
Gyte
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Judy
J
Wright
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000941:ethics*; D032882:Comprehension; D005865:Gestational Age; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007232:Infant, Newborn, Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D007234:Infant, Premature; D033282:Parental Consent / Q000941:ethics*; D018579:Patient Selection / Q000941:ethics*; D011368:Professional-Family Relations / Q000941:ethics; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000941:ethics*; D014836:Volition
Clinicians; Competence; Consent; Ethics; Information; Parents; Pre-term/sick neonates; Research; Risk; Validity; Voluntariness