Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics (Informed Consent and Conflicts of Interest)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Trials

Part of the book series: Success in Academic Surgery ((SIAS))

Abstract

The aim of clinical trials is to obtain generalizable knowledge that can be used to advance healthcare. The ethical issues in clinical trials arise when human subjects, who may not directly benefit from the research, are faced with the risk of being exploited or harmed. Additional ethical challenges pertain to informed consent of subjects and conflicts of interest of physician-investigators. The current ethical standards for research are based on guidelines and laws which were a necessary response to historical abuses of participants in the name of science. In this chapter, a framework for evaluating clinical research for ethical deficits is discussed, as are challenges in upholding ethical principles, including in obtaining informed consent from research participants as well as in navigating conflicts of interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military tribunals under control council law no. 10. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1949. p. 181–182.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding doctors in clinical research. Finland: 18th World Medical Assembly; June 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Declaration of Helsinki: recommendations guiding medical doctors in biomedical research involving human subjects. Japan: 29th World Medical Assembly; October 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brandt AM. Racism and research: the case of the Tuskegee syphilis study. Hast Cent Rep. 1978;8(6):21–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274(24):1354–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sparks J. Timeline of laws related to the protection of human subjects. National Institutes of Health Office of History; June 2002. https://history.nih.gov/about/timelines_laws_human.html.

  7. Menikoff J. Rules and regulations. Fed Regist. 2017;82(12):7149–62.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Menikoff J, Kaneshiro J, Pritchard I. The common rule, updated. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(7):613–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. In: Services UDoHaH, editor. Title 45: public welfare; part 46—protection of human subjects. Online 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Barondess JA. Medicine against society. Lessons from the Third Reich. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1657–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(3):141–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Berry MF, Zeyer-Brunner J, Castleberry AW, Martin JT, Gloor B, Pietrobon R, et al. Treatment modalities for T1N0 esophageal cancers: a comparative analysis of local therapy versus surgical resection. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8(6):796–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ell C, May A, Gossner L, Pech O, Gunter E, Mayer G, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection of early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2000;118(4):670–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Omae M, Fujisaki J, Horiuchi Y, Yoshizawa N, Matsuo Y, Kubota M, et al. Safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early esophagogastric junction cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2013;16(2):147–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ioannidis JPA, Stuart ME, Brownlee S, Strite SA. How to survive the medical misinformation mess. Eur J Clin Investig. 2017;47(11):795–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rice TW. The historical, ethical, and legal background of human-subjects research. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1325–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barker AD, Sigman CC, Kelloff GJ, Hylton NM, Berry DA, Esserman LJ. I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;86(1):97–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Behrendt C, Golz T, Roesler C, Bertz H, Wunsch A. What do our patients understand about their trial participation? Assessing patients’ understanding of their informed consent consultation about randomised clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2011;37(2):74–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Robinson EJ, Kerr CE, Stevens AJ, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Edwards SJ, et al. Lay public’s understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(8):1–192, iii-iv.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Falagas ME, Korbila IP, Giannopoulou KP, Kondilis BK, Peppas G. Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg. 2009;198(3):420–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dellson P, Nilsson K, Jernstrom H, Carlsson C. Patients’ reasoning regarding the decision to participate in clinical cancer trials: an interview study. Trials. 2018;19(1):528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Angelos P. Ethical issues of participant recruitment in surgical clinical trials. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(10):3184–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bossert S, Strech D. An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving ‘understanding’ in informed consent. Trials. 2017;18(1):482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, Clark JW, Weeks JC. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(2):139–47.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Cohn EG, Jia H, Smith WC, Erwin K, Larson EL. Measuring the process and quality of informed consent for clinical research: development and testing. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011;38(4):417–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gillies K, Elwyn G, Cook J. Making a decision about trial participation: the feasibility of measuring deliberation during the informed consent process for clinical trials. Trials. 2014;15:307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stryker JE, Wray RJ, Emmons KM, Winer E, Demetri G. Understanding the decisions of cancer clinical trial participants to enter research studies: factors associated with informed consent, patient satisfaction, and decisional regret. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63(1–2):104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wade J, Elliott D, Avery KNL, Gaunt D, Young GJ, Barnes R, et al. Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of participatory and informed consent (PIC). Trials. 2017;18(1):327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Childers R, Lipsett PA, Pawlik TM. Informed consent and the surgeon. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208(4):627–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Synnot A, Ryan R, Prictor M, Fetherstonhaugh D, Parker B. Audio-visual presentation of information for informed consent for participation in clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(5):CD003717.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Agre P, Rapkin B. Improving informed consent: a comparison of four consent tools. IRB. 2003;25(6):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grady C, Cummings SR, Rowbotham MC, McConnell MV, Ashley EA, Kang G. Informed consent. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(9):856–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wendler D. The assent requirement in pediatric research. In: Emanuel EJ, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gilbert T, Bosquet A, Thomas-Anterion C, Bonnefoy M, Le Saux O. Assessing capacity to consent for research in cognitively impaired older patients. Clin Interv Aging. 2017;12:1553–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Karlawish J. Emergency research. In: Emanuel EJ, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Capron A. Legal and regulatory standards of informed consent in research. In: Emanuel EJ, editor. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Angelos P. Surgical ethics and the challenge of surgical innovation. Am J Surg. 2014;208(6):881–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stead WW. The complex and multifaceted aspects of conflicts of interest. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1765–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(8):573–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Lo B, Field MJ, editors. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Agrawal S, Brennan N, Budetti P. The sunshine act—effects on physicians. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2054–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cherla DV, Olavarria OA, Holihan JL, Viso CP, Hannon C, Kao LS, et al. Discordance of conflict of interest self-disclosure and the centers of Medicare and Medicaid services. J Surg Res. 2017;218:18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jacmon H. Disclosure is inadequate as a solution to managing conflicts of interest in human research. J Bioeth Inq. 2018;15(1):71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lichter AS. Conflict of interest and the integrity of the medical profession. JAMA. 2017;317(17):1725–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the outstanding work of Jukes Namm and Peter Angelos for authoring the first edition of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

    Kara K. Rossfeld, Jordan M. Cloyd, Elizabeth Palmer & Timothy M. Pawlik

Authors
  1. Kara K. Rossfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jordan M. Cloyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy M. Pawlik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kara K. Rossfeld .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Chair, Department of Surgery The Urban Meyer III and Shelley Meyer Chair for Cancer Research, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical, Columbus, OH, USA

    Timothy M. Pawlik

  2. Leon Goldman, MD Distinguished Professor of Surgery and Chair Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Julie A. Sosa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rossfeld, K.K., Cloyd, J.M., Palmer, E., Pawlik, T.M. (2020). Ethics (Informed Consent and Conflicts of Interest). In: Pawlik, T., Sosa, J. (eds) Clinical Trials. Success in Academic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35488-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35488-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-35487-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-35488-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation