Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 337–350 | Cite as

Emergency Research without Consent under Polish Law

Original Paper

Abstract

Although Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use does not contain an exception for emergency situations, and requires the informed consent of a legal representative in all cases where research is conducted on legally competent individuals who are unable to give informed consent, in Poland, emergency research can be conducted without consent. Polish regulations on emergency research can hardly be treated as a result of intentional legislative policy. Our provisions arise from multiple and sophisticated interpretations of different regulations that govern medical experiments on human subjects and clinical trials. These interpretations can be summarized as follows: (1) There are two categories of medical experiments: therapeutic and non-therapeutic experiments. Emergency research without consent may be conducted in the category of therapeutic experiment only (therapeutic experiment consists of the introduction by the physician of new or only partially proven diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive methods in order to achieve direct benefit to the health of the patients, and it can be carried out when hitherto applied methods were ineffective or their effectiveness was insufficient). (2). Emergency research may be conducted without consent if there is a situation of great urgency in which the research subject’s life is in danger and there is no possibility of obtaining immediate consent from the research subject him or herself, or from his or her legal representative or guardianship court, and the research subject has not refused to give consent for the participation in an emergency therapeutic experiment. The legal representative or guardianship court shall be provided with all the relevant information concerning subject’s participation in an experiment as soon as possible. All projects of emergency research with intent to be done without the research subject’s consent must be approved by an independent bioethics committee. Because these five requirements seem to provide insufficient protection for a subject’s autonomy and rights it is necessary to add to them two other conditions: (1) the emergency research could not be conducted using other research participants capable of giving informed consent; and (2) informed consent for continued participation in the emergency research shall be obtained from either the participant him or herself or the legally authorized representative as soon as possible (requirement of obtaining deferred consent). A consolidated single Act that will govern all aspects of medical experiments on human subjects, including emergency research, should be prepared and enacted as soon as possible.

Keywords

Emergency research Directive 2001/20/EC Polish law Medical experiments Informed consent Waiver of consent 

References

  1. 1.
    Karlawish, J. H. T., & Hall, J. B. (1996). The controversy over emergency research: A review of the issues and suggestion for a resolution, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 153, 499–506, as quoted by Lemaire, F. (2005). Waiving consent for emergency research. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 35, 287–289.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Nuremberg Code. (1949). Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law 10 (Vol. 2, pp. 181–182). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Medical Association. (1964). Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly in Helsinki, Finland, June 1964 (last revised by the WMA General Assembly in Tokyo 2004). Available at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm
  4. 4.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). (2002). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects (Revised Version). Geneva, Switzerland. Available at http://www.cioms.ch/frame_guidelines_nov_2002.htm
  5. 5.
    International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). (1996). Harmonized Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Available at http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/276-254-1.html
  6. 6.
    The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report, ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smithline, H. A., Mader, T. J., & Crenshaw B. J. (1999). Do patients with acute medical condition have the capacity to give informed consent for emergency medicine research? Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 776–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agard, A., Hermerén, G., & Herlitz, J. (2001). Patients’ experiences of intervention trials on the treatment of myocardial infarction: Is it time to adjust the informed consent procedure to the patient’s capacity? Heart, 86, 632–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams, B. F., French, J. K., White, H. D., & HERO-2 consent substudy investigators. (2003). Informed consent during the clinical emergency of acute myocardial infarction (HERO-2 consent substudy): a prospective observational study. Lancet, 361, 918–922.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schats, R., Brilstra, E. H., Rinkel, G. J., Algra, A., & Van Gijn, J. (2003). Informed consent in trials for neurological emergencies: The example of subarachnoid haemorrhage. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 74, 988–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demarquay, G., Derex, L., Nighoghossian, N., Adeleine, P., Philippeau, F., Honnorat, J., & Trouillas, P. (2005). Ethical issues of informed consent in acute stroke. Analysis of the modalities of consent in 56 patients enrolled in urgent therapeutic trials. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 19, 65–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kane, I., Lindley, R., Lewis, S., Sandercock, P., & IST-3 Collaborative Group. (2006). Impact of stroke syndrome and stroke severity on the process of consent in the Third International Stroke Trial. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 21, 348–352.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clifton, G. L., Knudson, P., & McDonald, M. (2002). Waiver of consent in studies of acute brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 19, 1121–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The CRASH Trial Management Group. (2004). Research in emergency situations: with or without relatives consent. Emergency Medicine Journal, 21, 703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kompanje, E. J., Maas, A. I., Hilhorst, M. T., Slieker, F. J., & Teasdale, G. M. (2005). Ethical considerations on consent procedures for emergency research in severe and moderate traumatic brain injury. Acta Neurochirurgica, 147, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fost, N. (1998). Waived consent for emergency research. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 24, 163–183.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Richardson, L. D. (2005). The ethics of research without consent in emergency situations. The Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 72, 243–249.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morris, M. C. (2005). An ethical analysis of exception from informed consent regulations. Academic Emergency Medicine, 12, 1113–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    (2004). Ethics in Emergency Medicine. Clinical Trials in an emergency setting: Implications from the fifth version of the declaration of Helsinki. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 26, 127–131.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Council of Europe. (2005). Additional protocol to the convention on human rights and biomedicine, concerning biomedical research. Strasbourg. Available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/195.htm
  21. 21.
    Lötjönen, S. (2002). Medical research in clinical emergency settings in Europe. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. (2001). Official Journal of the European Communities Law, 121, 34–44.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singer, E. A., & Müllner, M. (2002). Implications of the EU directive on clinical trials for emergency medicine. British Medical Journal, 324, 1169–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Warlow, C., Teasdale, G., & Cobbe, S. (2002). Evaluation of treatments is threatened by EC directive. British Medical Journal, 325, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Druml, Ch. (2004). Informed consent of incapable (ICU) patients in Europe: Existing laws and the EU Directive. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 10, 570–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Silverman, H. J., Druml, C., Lemaire, F., & Nelson, R. (2005). The European Union Directive and the protection of incapacitated subjects in research: An ethical analysis. Intensive Care Medicine, 30, 1723–1729.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lemaire, F. (2005). Waiving consent for emergency research. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 35, 287–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    (2004). Act of 20 April 2004 on amending of following Laws – pharmaceutical law, act on profession of physician – provisions introducing act – pharmaceutical law, act on medical devices, and act on office for registration of medicinal products, medical devices, and biocides. Journal of Laws, No. 92, pos. 882.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    (2004). Act of 6 September 2001 – pharmaceutical law. Journal of Laws, No. 53, pos. 533 (unified version).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    (2005). Act of 5 December 1996 on profession of physician and dentist. Journal of Law, No. 226, pos. 1943 (unified version).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    (1997). The Constitution of the Republic of Poland. Journal of Laws, No. 79, pos. 483.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boratyńska, M., & Konieczniak, P. (2001). Prawa pacjenta. Difin, Warsaw.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Safjan, M. (1993). Wybrane aspekty prawne eksperymentów medycznych na człowieku (problem legalności i odpowiedzialności cywilnej). Studia Iuridica, 26, 65–89.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    (2004). Act of 29 April 2004 on Medical Devices, Journal of Laws, No. 93, pos. 896.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    (2005). Regulation of the Minister of Health of 11 March 2005 on detailed requirements of good clinical practice. Journal of Laws, No. 57, pos. 500.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Iwanowski, P. S., & Olędzka, U. (2004). Eksperyment medyczny w stanach nagłych i w stanach zagrożenia życia. Prawo i Medycyna, 16, 43–55.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Iwańska, B. (2000). Warunki dopuszczalności przeprowadzania eksperymentów medycznych. Państwo i Prawo. 2, 71–84.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nestorowicz, M. (2005). Prawo medyczne (7th ed.). Toruń: Dom Organizatora.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kubiak, R. (2002). Zasady prowadzenia badań przedklinicznych i klinicznych. Prawo i Medycyna, 12, 81–100.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of 17 March 1993, W./16/92, Journal of Laws 1993, No. 23, pos. 103.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Blixen, C. E., & Agich, G. J. (2005). Stroke patients’ preferences and values about emergency research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 608–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Booth, M. G., Lind, A., Read, E., & Kinsella, J. (2005). Public perception of emergency research: A questionnaire. European Journal of Anesthesiology, 22, 933–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wysocki, J., & Bubrowski, M. (2002). Badania kliniczne środków farmaceutycznych i materiałów medycznych w Polsce – stan obecny i perspektywy wobec wymagań związanych z przystąpieniem do Unii Europejskiej. Prawo i Medycyna, 12, 64–80.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lemaire, F., Bion, J., Blanco, J., Damas, P., Druml, C., Falke, K., Kesecioglu, J., Larsson, A., Mancebo, J., Matamis, D., Pesenti, A., Pimantei, J., & Ranieri, M. (2005). The European Union Directive on clinical research: Present status of implementation in EU member states’ legislations with regard to the incompetent patients. Intensive Care Medicine, 31, 476–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School for Social Research, Institute of Philosophy and SociologyPolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland
  2. 2.WarsawPoland
  3. 3.Bioethics Committee of the Warsaw Regional Chamber of Physicians and DentistsWarsawPoland
  4. 4.Department of Internal Medicine and EndocrinologyMedical University of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations