Ethics of clinical research with mentally ill persons

Original Paper


This article describes ethical, legal and professional components of the two core requirements of clinical research: informed consent and risk–benefit relationships. It deals particularly with the ethically relevant reasons, criteria, procedures and validity of (1) the informed consent process, (2) the relationship between benefits and risks, and as a requirement of its assessment: (3) standards and (quasi quantitative) criteria of benefits and risks and/or burdens of a research intervention. These requirements will be discussed with specific reference to research interventions in mentally ill patients, and particularly in those who are incompetent to consent. (4) The analysis concludes by demanding a strong adherence to the ethical rules of clinical research in order to protect participants and preserve the trust of both the patients and the public and (5) yields in a set of recommendations.


Ethics of psychiatric research Mentally ill subjects Incapacity to consent Standards of benefits and risks Risk–benefit relationship 


  1. 1.
    Propping P (2010) Genetics: ethical implications of research, diagnostics and counseling. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N (eds) Ethics in psychiatry. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meltzer H, Brugha TS (2010) Ethical concerns in carrying out surveys of psychiatric morbidity. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N (eds) Ethics in psychiatry. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007) Public health: ethical issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Petrini C (2010) Ethical issues in translational research. Perspect Biol Med 53:517–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    AK Versorgungsforschung im Wissenschaftlichen Beirat der Bundesärztekammer. Definition und Abgrenzung der Versorgungsforschung. 2004
  6. 6.
    World Medical Association (WMA) (2008) Declaration of Helsinki 2008.
  7. 7.
    Appelbaum PS (2011) Can a theory of voluntariness be a priori and value-free? Am J Bioeth 12:17–35Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamp G (2009) Arguments from instrumentalization. Newsletter d.Europäischen Akademie, Bad Neuenahr1-3Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sass HM (1983) Reichsrundschreiben 1931: pre-nuremberg german regulations concerning new therapy and human experimentation. J Med Philos 8:99–111PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Gefenas E (2007) Balancing ethical principles in emergency medicine research. Sci Eng Ethics 13:281–288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tarini BA, Burke W, Scott CR, Wilfond BS (2008) Waiving informed consent in newborn screening research: balancing social value and respect. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 148C:23–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Steiner T, Walter-Sack I, Taupitz J, Hacke W, Strowitzki T (2008) Ethische und juristische Aspekte beim Einschluss nicht einwilligungsfähiger Patienten in Akuttherapie-Studien: Beispiel einer Arzneimittelstudie zur Behandlung intrazerebraler Blutungen: das Heidelberger Verfahren. Legal and ethic rationales of including patients unable to consent into clinical trials. DMW 133:787–792Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kroll T, Morris J (2009) Challenges and opportunities in using mixed method designs in rehabilitation research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:S 11–S 16Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alexander SJ (2010) As long as it helps somebody’: why vulnerable people participate in research. Int J Palliat Nurs 16:174–179PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macklin R (2010) Enrolling pregnant women in biomedical research. Lancet 375:632–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oquendo MA, Stanley B, Ellis SP, Mann JJ (2004) Protection of human subjects in intervention research for suicidal behaviour. Am J Psychiatry 161:1558–1563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knoepffler N (2008) Research: ethical norms for medical research on humans]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 51:880–886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mihai A, Damsa C, Allen M, Baleydier B, Lazignac C, Heinz A (2007) Viewing videotape of themselves while experiencing delirium tremens could reduce the relapse rate in alcohol-dependent patients. Addiction 102:226–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Habermann E, Lasch H, Gödicke P (2000) Therapeutische Prüfung an Nichteinwilligungsfähigen im Eilfall: ethisch geboten und rechtlich zulässig? NJW 46:3389–3395Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rittner C (2007) Ein Modell für die Forschung an einwilligungsunfähigen (bewußtlosen) Patienten. MedR 25:340–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mangset M, F + ©rde R, Nessa J, Berge E, Wyller TB (2008) ΓÇ£I donΓÇÖt like that, itΓÇÖs tricking people too muchΓǪΓÇØ: acute informed consent to participation in a trial of thrombolysis for stroke. J Med Ethics 34:751–756Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kölch M, Ludolph AG, Plöner PL, Fangerau H, Vitiello B, Fegert JM (2010) Safeguarding children’s rights in psychopharmacological research: ethical and legal issues. Curr Pharm Des 16:2398–2406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eriksson S (2010) On the need for improved protections of incapacitated and non-benefitting research subjects. Bioethics [epub ahead (PMID: 20184559)]Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parvizi J, Chakravarty R, Og B, Rodriguez-Paez A (2008) Informed consent: is it always necessary? Injury 39:651–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glass KC, Binik A (2008) Rethinking risk in pediatric research. J Law Med Ethics 36:567–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Helmchen H (2008) Clinical research in the mentally ill. Ethical considerations. In: Thiele F, Fegert JM, Stock G (eds) Clinial research in minors and the mentally ill. Europäische Akademie zur Erforschung von der Folgen wissenschaftlich-technischer Entwicklungen, Bad Neuenahr-AhrweilerGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Appelbaum PS (2007) Assessment of patient’s competence to consent to treatment. NEJM 357:1834–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim SY, Appelbaum PS, Kim HM, Wall IF, Bourgeois JA, Frankel B, Hails KC, Rundell JR, Seibel KM, Karlawish JH (2011) Variability of judgments of capacity: experience of capacity evaluators in a study of research consent capacity. Psychosomatics. 52:346–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dunn LB, Nowrangi MA, Palmer BW, Jeste DV, Saks ER (2006) Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: a review of instruments. Am J Psychiatry 163:1323–1334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Okai D, Owen G, McGuire H, Singh S, Churchill R, Hotopf M (2007) Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: Systematic review. Br J Psychiatry 191:291–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roberts LW, Warner TD, Nguyen KP, Geppert CM, Rogers MK, Roberts BB (2003) Schizophrenia patients’ and psychiatrists’ perspectives on ethical aspects of symptom re-emergence during psychopharmacological research participation. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 171(1):58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simonsen S (2009) Acceptable risk and the requirement of proportionality in European Biomedical Research Law. What does the requirement that biomedical research shall not involve risks and burdens disproportionate to its potential benefits mean? Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weisstub DN (2002) Honor, dignity, and the framing of multiculturalist values. In: Kretzmer D, Klein E (eds) The concept of human dignity in human rights discourse. Kluwer International Law, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Macklin R (2003) Dignity is a useless concept. It means no more than respect for persons or their autonomy. BMJ 327:1419–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rajczi A (2004) Making risk-benefit assessments of medical research protocols. J Law Med Ethics 32:338–348PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) (2005) Part 46 Protection of human subjects., 26 September 2011
  38. 38.
    Wendler D, Miller FG (2007) Assessing research risks systematically: the net risks test. J Med Ethics 33:481–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wiesing U (2011) Comments on “Ethics of clinical resarch with mentally ill persons”Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hüppe A, Raspe H (2011) Mehr Nutzen als Schaden? Nutzen- und Schadenpotenziale von Forschungsprojekten einer Medizinischen Fakultät: eine empirische Analyse. Ethik Med 23:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deutscher Bundestag. Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB), Fünftes Buch (V), Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung. Zuletzt geändert durch Art. 2 G v. 22.12.2010 I 2309. 22-12-2010. 4-4-2011
  42. 42.
    European Guideline for Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP-Guideline E6) in 1996/Directive 2001/20/EC. 2011. 26-9-2011
  43. 43.
    Deutscher Bundestag. Arzneimittelgesetz (AMG), incl. 12. Novelle 2004. 1975
  44. 44.
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 2011. 26-9-2011
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
    Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) (2011) 26-9-2011
  47. 47.
    Swissmedic—Schweizerisches Heilmittelinstitut (2011) 26-9-2011
  48. 48.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom (2011)
  49. 49.
    Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) (2011)
  50. 50.
    Möller HJ, Maier W (2010) Evidence-based medicine in psychopharmacotherapy: possibilities, problems and limitations. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 260:25–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wendler D, Krohmal B, Eanuel EJ, Grady C, ESPRIT Group (2008) Why patients continue to participate in clinical research. Arch Intern Med 168:1294–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sofaer N, Jafarey A, Lei RP, Zhang X, Wikler D (2007) Unconditional compensation: reducing the costs of disagreement about compensation for research subjects. East Mediterr Health J 13:6–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Connell CM, Shaw B, Holmes SB, Forster NL (2001) Caregivers’ attitudes toward their family members’ participation in Alzheimer disease research: implications for recruitment and retention. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 15:137–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mastwyk M, Ritchie CW, LoGiudice D, Sullivan KA, Macfarlane S (2002) Carers’ impressions of participation in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: What are their hopes? And is it worth it? 14:37–45 (34). International Psychogeriatrics 14:39–45Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Friedman A, Robbins E, Wendler D (2010) Which benefits of research participation count as ‘direct’? Bioethics. PMID: 20497168 [PubMed–as supplied by publisher] PMCID: PMC2945615 [Available on 2011/11/17]Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Vollmann J (2000) “Therapeutische” versus “nicht-therapeutische” Forschung: eine medizinethische plausible Differenzierung? Ethik Med 12:65–74Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Helmchen H (2002) Biomedizinische Forschung mit einwilligungsunfähigen Erwachsenen. In: Taupitz J (ed) Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin des Europarates: taugliches Vorbild für eine weltweit geltende Regelung? Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Council of Europe (2011) Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine. 26-9-2011
  59. 59.
    Council of Europe. Draft Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, on Biomedical Research. 23-8-2003
  60. 60.
    Council of Europe (2011) Explanatory report: convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine.
  61. 61.
    Walter H, Berger M, Schnell K (2009) Neuropsychotherapy: conceptual, empirical and neuroethical issues. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 259:173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Castonguay LG (2011) Controlling is not enough: the importance of measuring the process and specific effectiveness of psychotherapy treatment and control conditions. Ethics Behav 12:31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Taupitz J (Hrg) (2002) Das Menschenrechtsübereinkommen zur Biomedizin des Europarates. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wendler D (2008) Is it possible to protect pediatric research subjects without blocking appropriate research? J Pediatr 152(4):467–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wendler D, Belsky L, Thompson KM, Emanuel EJ (2005) Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA 294:826–832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wendler D (2009) Minimal risk in pediatric research as a function of age. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 163:115–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Resnik DB (2005) Eliminating the daily risks standard from the definition of minimal risk. J Med Ethics 31:35–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zentrale Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer (1997) Stellungnahme “Zum Schutz nicht-einwilligungsfähiger Personen in der medizinischen Forschung”. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 94:B811–B812Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kopelman LM, Murphy TF (2004) Ethical concerns about federal approval of risky pediatric studies. Pediatrics 113(6):1783–1789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wendler D, Emanuel EJ (2005) What is a “minor” increase over minimal risk? J Pediatr 147(5):575–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Westra AE, Engberts DP, Sukhai RN, Wit JM, de Beaufort ID (2010) Drug development for children: how adequate is the current European ethical guidance? Arch Dis Child 95:3–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Often referred to as the “Common Rule”). 26-9-2011
  73. 73.
    Iltis A (2007) Pediatric research posing a minor increase over minimal risk and no prospect of direct benefit: challenging 45 CFR 46.406. Account Res 14:19–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Fisher CB, Kornetsky SZ, Prentice ED (2007) Determining risk in pediatric research with no prospect of direct benefit: time for a national consensus on the interpretation of federal regulations. Am J Bioeth 7:5–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Helmchen H, Lauter H (1995) Dürfen Ärzte mit Demenzkranken forschen? Analyse des Problemfeldes Forschungsbedarf und Einwilligungsproblematik. Thieme, Stuttgart, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Terwey JH (2007) Die Struktur ethisch relevanter Kategorien medizinischer Forschung am Menschen. Medizinische Fakultät der Universität GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hoffmann M, Schöne-Seifert B (2007) Equipoise: ein Kriterium für die ethische Zulässigkeit klinischer Studien? In: Boos J, Merkel R, Raspe H, Schöne-Seifert B (eds) Nutzen und Schaden aus klinischer Forschung am Menschen. Abwägung, Equipoise und normative Grundlagen., Köln. Deutscher Ärzteverlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317:141–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    London AJ (2007) Clinical equipoise: foundational requirement or fundamental error? In: Steinbock B (ed) The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH (2000) The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research 2883. Lancet 356:635–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Miller PB, Weijer C (2007) Equipoise and the duty of care in clinical research: a philosophical response to our critics. J Med Philos 32:117–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Magnus D, Merkel R (2007) Normativ-rechtliche Grundlagen der Forschung an Nichteinwilligungsfähigen. In: Boos J, Merkel R, Raspe H, Schöne-Seifert B (eds) Nutzen und Schaden aus klinischer Forschung am Menschen. Abwägung, Equipoise und normative Grundlagen. Deutscher Ärzteverlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Appelbaum PS, Lidz CW (2008) Re-evaluating the therapeutic misconception: response to Miller and Joffe. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 16:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Möller HJ, Broich K (2010) Principle standards and problems regarding proof of efficacy in clinical psychopharmacology. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 260:3–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV (2004) Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med 351:2870–2874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Miller FG, Brody H (2005) Viewpoint: professional integrity in industry-sponsored clinical trials. Acad Med 80:899–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Weijer C, Miller PB (2007) Refuting the net risks test: a response to Wendler and Miller’s “Assessing research risks systematically. J Med Ethics 33:487–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gifford F (2010) Pulling the plug on clinical equipoise: a critique of Miller and Weijer. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 17:203–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Miller FG, Brody H (2007) Clinical equipoise and the incoherence of research ethics. J Med Philos 32:151–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Resnik DB (2010) Public trust as a policy goal for research with human subjects. Am J Bioethics 10:15–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Helmchen H (2004) Ethical implications of relationships between psychiatrists and pharmaceutical industry.
  92. 92.
    DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB (2010) Strengthening the credibility of clinical research. Lancet 376:234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Fava GA (2010) Conflicts of Interest. In: Helmchen H, Sartorius N (eds) Ethics in psychiatry. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287(5):612–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Maclean A (2009) Autonomy, informed consent and medical law. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Editorial The Lancet (2009) Teaching responsible conduct of research. Lancet 374:1568Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyCharité–University Medicine Berlin, CBFBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations