Götz Sophie-Charlotte, Marckmann Georg, Hasford Joerg, Jox Ralf J
Institut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland.
Institut für Med. Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland.
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020 Apr;63(4):465-474. doi: 10.1007/s00103-019-03058-x.
In Germany, the drug law was revised in 2016 to include new regulations on clinical drug trials with adults who lack decision-making capacity. For the first time, trials with a merely indirect benefit (benefit for other patients with similar characteristics) will be possible if several safeguards are respected. The ethical justification and practicality of this regulation are controversially discussed.
(1) Eliciting the current pertinent practice of research ethics committees in Germany regarding research with indirect benefit on adults without decision-making capacity; (2) exploring the possibilities and difficulties of implementing the new law.
Semiquantitative, anonymous questionnaire among 249 members of all 53 human research ethics committees in Germany.
Eighty-four questionnaires were analyzed (response rate 34%). The participants disagreed on assigning research projects to the categories of research with direct benefit to the subject, with an indirect benefit, and without any benefit. Moreover, the criteria of minimum risk and minimum burden were interpreted heterogeneously. More than half of the participants judged the newly introduced research advance directive to be unnecessary, given the legal safeguards in place. The applicability of these directives was doubted because of the strict requirements for anticipatory informed consent and the restricted predictability of future research.
In spite of the new legal regulation, significant ethical uncertainties remain concerning research with indirect benefit on adults without decision-making capacity. It remains an open question whether we need a better explanation of the law, additional legal regulation, practice evaluation, or a completely new law.
在德国,2016年修订了药品法,纳入了关于对缺乏决策能力的成年人进行临床试验的新规定。如果遵守若干保障措施,首次有可能开展仅具有间接益处(对其他具有相似特征的患者有益)的试验。这一规定的伦理依据和实用性引发了争议性讨论。
(1)了解德国研究伦理委员会目前在对缺乏决策能力的成年人进行具有间接益处的研究方面的相关做法;(2)探讨实施新法律的可能性和困难。
对德国所有53个人类研究伦理委员会的249名成员进行半定量、匿名问卷调查。
分析了84份问卷(回复率34%)。参与者在将研究项目归类为对受试者有直接益处的研究、有间接益处的研究和无任何益处的研究方面存在分歧。此外,对最低风险和最低负担标准的解释也存在差异。鉴于已有的法律保障措施,超过半数的参与者认为新引入的研究预先指示没有必要。由于对预期知情同意的严格要求以及未来研究的可预测性受限,这些指示的适用性受到质疑。
尽管有新的法律规定,但对于对缺乏决策能力的成年人进行具有间接益处的研究,仍存在重大的伦理不确定性。我们是否需要对法律进行更好的解释、额外的法律规定、实践评估或一部全新的法律,这仍是一个悬而未决的问题。