Skip to main content

Including People with Dementia in Research: An Analysis of Australian Ethical and Legal Rules and Recommendations for Reform

Abstract

Research is crucial to advancing knowledge about dementia, yet the burden of the disease currently outpaces research activity. Research often excludes people with dementia and other cognitive impairments because researchers and ethics committees are concerned about issues related to capacity, consent, and substitute decision-making. In Australia, participation in research by people with cognitive impairment is governed by a national ethics statement and a patchwork of state and territorial laws that have widely varying rules. We contend that this legislative variation precludes a consistent approach to research governance and participation and hinders research that seeks to include people with impaired capacity. In this paper, we present key ethical principles, provide a comprehensive review of applicable legal rules in Australian states and territories, and highlight significant differences and ambiguities. Our analysis includes recommendations for reform to improve clarity and consistency in the law and reduce barriers that may exclude persons with dementia from participating in ethically approved research. Our recommendations seek to advance the national decision-making principles recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission, which emphasize the rights of all adults to make their own decisions and for those with impaired capacity to have access to appropriate supports to help them make decisions that affect their lives.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Despite a process for National Mutual Acceptance of the scientific and ethical review of multisite human research in Australia (NSW Government 2017a), jurisdiction specific laws impose varying consent and substitute decision-making rules that must be followed.

  2. 2.

    The National Statement is produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council in accordance with its statutory obligations under s10 of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 (Cth) to issue guidelines for research involving humans.

  3. 3.

    The four national decision-making principles contained in the report (2014, 11) are:

    1. (1)

      The equal right to make decisions: All adults have an equal right to make decisions that affect their lives and to have those decisions respected.

    2. (2)

      Support: Persons who require support in decision-making must be provided with access to the support necessary for them to make, communicate, and participate in decisions that affect their lives.

    3. (3)

      Will, preferences, and rights: The will, preferences, and rights of persons who may require decision-making support must direct decisions that affect their lives.

    4. (4)

      Safeguards: Laws and legal frameworks must contain appropriate and effective safeguards in relation to interventions for persons who may require decision-making support, including to prevent abuse and undue influence.

  4. 4.

    In Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital (1914) 211 NY 125, Cardozo J famously wrote that “[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind had has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body” (at 129). This principle has been adopted in Australian law: see for example, Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58 and Hunter and New England Area Health Service (2009) 74 NSWLR 88.

  5. 5.

    At the time of writing, the NSW Guardianship Act 1987 is under review and the NSW Law Reform Commission has been charged, inter alia, with examining the statutory rules concerning clinical trials (NSW Government 2017b).

  6. 6.

    A submission to the NSW Government about the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) reform noted that it took eighteen months to obtain a tribunal decision on a research study that sought to include people with impaired capacity (South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee 2016).

References

  1. Alzheimer’s Australia. 2017. Key facts and statistics. 2017. Alzheimer’s Australia, February. https://fightdementia.org.au/national/statistics. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  2. Alzheimer’s Disease International. 2015. World alzheimer report 2015: The global impact of dementia: An analysis of prevalence, incidence, cost and trends. http://www.alz.co.uk/research/world-report-2015. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  3. Andorno, R., E. Gennet, K. Jongsma, and B. Elger. 2016. Integrating advance research directives into the European legal framework. European Journal of Health Law 23(2):158–173.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016. Summary of findings: About cause of death statistics. http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2014~Main%20Features~Summary%20of%20Findings~1. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. n.d. National health priority areas. http://www.aihw.gov.au/national-health-priority-areas/. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  6. Australian Law Reform Commission. 2014. Equality, capacity and disability in Commonwealth laws. Report No 124.

  7. Buller, T. 2015. Advance consent, critical interests and dementia research. Journal of Medical Ethics 41(8): 701–707.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Burns, A., and S. Iliffe. 2009. Dementia. British Medical Journal 338: b75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cubit, K. 2010. Informed consent for research involving people with dementia: A grey area. Contemporary Nurse 34(2): 230–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Health. 2012. WA health research governance policy and procedures. Research Development Unit, Department of Health, Perth.

    Google Scholar 

  11. De Vries, R., K.A. Ryan, A. Stanczyk. et al. 2013. Public’s approach to surrogate consent for dementia research: Cautious pragmatism. American Journal Geriatrics Psychiatry 21(4): 364–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dresser, R. 2001. Dementia research: Ethics and policy for the twenty-first century. Georgia Law Review 35: 661–690.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Duron, E., M. Boulay, J.S. Vidal, et al. 2013. Capacity to consent to biomedical research’s evaluation among older cognitively impaired patient. A study to validate the university of California brief assessment of capacity to consent questionnaire in French among older cognitively impaired patients. Journal Nutritional Health Aging 17(4): 385–389.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Government of South Australia. n.d. Advance Care Directive Form. http://www.advancecaredirectives.sa.gov.au/upload/home/ACDFormSecure.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  15. Guideline Adaptation Committee. 2016. Clinical practice guidelines and principles of care for people with dementia. Sydney: Guideline Adaption Committee. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/cdpc/documents/resources/LAVER_Dementia_Guidleines_recommendations_PRVW5.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  16. Jeste, D.V., B.M. Palmer, and P.S. Appelbaum. 2007. A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Archives of General Psychiatry 64(8): 966–974.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jongsma, K.R., and S. van de Vathorst. 2015. Dementia research and advance consent: It is not about critical interests. Journal of Medical Ethics 41: 708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim, S.Y.H. 2011. The ethics of informed consent in Alzheimer disease research. Nature Reviews Neurology 7(7): 410–414.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lam, J., S.J. Lord, K.E. Hunter, J.R. Simes, T. Vu, and L.M. Askie. 2015. Australian clinical trial activity and burden of disease: An analysis of registered trials in National Health Priority Areas. Medical Journal of Australia 203(2): 97–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. LeBlanc, T.W., J.L. Wheeler, and A.P. Abernethy. 2010 Research in end-of-life settings: An ethical inquiry. Journal of Pain Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy 24(3): 244–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. 2015. Powers of Attorney Amendment Bill 2015 explanatory statement. http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/es/db_53083/20151119-62368/pdf/db_53083.pdf .. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  22. Mittal, D., B.W. Palmer, L.B. Dunn. et al. 2007 Comparison of two enhanced consent procedures for patients with mild Alzheimer disease or mild cognitive impairment. American Journal of Geriatic Psychiatry 15(2): 163–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Monroe, T.B., K.A. Herr, L.C. Mion, and R.L. Cowan. 2013. Ethical and legal issues in pain research in cognitively impaired older adults. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50(9): 1283–1287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy, K., F. Jordan, A. Hunter, A. Cooney, and D. Casey. 2015. Articulating the strategies for maximizing the inclusion of people with dementia in qualitative research studies. Dementia 14(6): 800–824.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). 2007. National statement on ethical conduct in human research (2007). Australian Government, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nishimura, A., J. Carey, P.J. Erwin, J.C. Tilburt, M.H. Murad, and J.B. McCormick. 2013. Improving understanding in the research informed consent process: A systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Medical Ethics 14(28): 1–15.

  27. NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). 2016. NCAT Guardianship Division fact sheet—Clinical trials. http://www.ncat.nsw.gov.au/Documents/gd_factsheet_clinical_trials.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2017.

  28. NSW Government. 2017a. National mutual acceptance of scientific and ethical review of multi-centre human research. http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/ethics/Pages/nma.aspx. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  29. ———. 2017b. Review of the Guardianship Act 1987. http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/lrc/lrc_current_projects/Guardianship/Guardianship.aspx>. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  30. Office of the Public Advocate. n.d. Section 42T certificate—Continuing medical research procedure. http://www.publicadvocate.vic.gov.au/our-services/publications-forms/medical-consent/medical-research-forms/85-section-42t-continuing-certificate. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  31. ———. 2013. Section 42T certificate. http://www.publicadvocate.vic.gov.au/our-services/publications-forms/medical-consent/medical-research-forms/84-section-42t-certificate. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  32. Pachana, N.A, J. Liddle, N. Peel, and B.G. Knight. 2015. Can we do better? Researchers’ experiences with ethical review boards on projects with later life as a focus. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 43(3): 701–707.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Parker, M. 2013. Double standards in special medical research: Questioning the discrepancy between requirements for medical research involving incompetent adults and medical research involving children. Journal of Law and Medicine 21: 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pierce, R. 2010. A changing landscape for advance directives in dementia research. Social Science and Medicine 80: 623–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Porteri, C., and C Petrini. 2015. Research involving subjects with Alzheimer’s disease in Italy: The possible role of family members. BMC Medical Ethics 16(12): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Queensland Government. 2004. Advance health directive. http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/15982/advance-health-directive.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  37. Seaman, J.B., L. Terhorst, A. Gentry, A. Hunsaker, L.S. Parker, and J.H. Lingler. 2015. Psychometric properties of decisional capacity screening tool for individuals contemplating participation in Alzheimer’s disease research. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease 46(1): 1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Slaughter, S., D. Cole, E. Jennings, and M.A. Reimer. 2007. Consent and assent to participate in research from people with dementia. Nursing Ethics 14(1): 27–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee. 2016. Preliminary Submission to NSW Law Reform Commission Review of the NSW Guardianship Act 1987. http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Current-projects/Guardianship/Preliminary-submissions/PGA40.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2017.

  40. Taylor, J.S., S.M. DeMers., E.K. Vig, and S. Borson. 2012. The disappearing subject: Exclusion of people with cognitive impairment and dementia from geriatrics research. Journal American Geriatric Society 60(3): 413–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Turner, E. 2015. Substitute decision-making for participation in medical research. Australian Health Law Bulletin (May): 66–71.

  42. Victorian Law Reform Commission. 2012. Guardianship final report. Report No 24.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nola M. Ries.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ries, N.M., Thompson, K.A. & Lowe, M. Including People with Dementia in Research: An Analysis of Australian Ethical and Legal Rules and Recommendations for Reform. Bioethical Inquiry 14, 359–374 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-017-9794-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Research ethics
  • Law
  • Dementia
  • Consent
  • Substitute decision-making
  • Advance directives